Double Taxation = Illegal Assessment

Training for: Legal Notes

The Maine Supreme Court has held that where property was assessed to two different taxpayers, only one of whom actually owned it, this amounted to double taxation, and the non-owner was entitled to an abatement on the basis of an illegal assessment.

In Town of Eddington v. Emera Maine, 2017 ME 225, the towns of Eddington and Bradley assessed Emera for high voltage transmission lines (Line 390 and Line 396) based on Emera’s own report of what it owned. Even after each town’s assessor questioned the report (because there was a significant increase in valuation over prior years), Emera confirmed its reported valuation. Only much later, almost three years after taxes were committed, did Emera discover and correct its error (it did not own Line 396) and apply for an abatement.

The towns argued that Emera’s mistake constituted an error in valuation, an abatement for which an application must be filed within 185 days of commitment (see 36 M.R.S.A. § 841(1)). Emera’s application, the towns argued, was therefore too late. The Law Court noted, however, that Line 396 had also been taxed to Maine Electric Power Company (its true owner) and that assessing the same line to Emera was double taxation, which is illegal. The error was thus an illegal assessment, which can be abated at any time within three years of commitment (again, see 36 M.R.S.A. § 841(1)). Emera’s application was therefore timely.

At the towns’ request, MMA Staff Attorney Breana N. Gersen filed an amicus curiae or “friend of the court” brief in this case. Although we are disappointed in the Court’s decision, we believe it is distinguishable from the more traditional holding that assessing a taxpayer for more property than he owns is an overvaluation error (see, e.g., City of Rockland v. Rockland Water Co., 82 Me. 188, 19 A. 163 (1889)). The critical difference in this case (at least it seems to us) is that the Court found the very same property to have been assessed to two different taxpayers.

Filing friend of the court briefs is one of the services that MMA Legal Services provides free of charge to our members. If your municipality is involved in appellate litigation that is of statewide significance to municipalities, we invite you to contact us to discuss this special form of assistance. (By R.P.F./B.N.G.)

The Maine Supreme Court has held that where property was assessed to two different taxpayers, only one of whom actually owned it, this amounted to double taxation, and the non-owner was entitled to an abatement on the basis of an illegal assessment.

In Town of Eddington v. Emera Maine, 2017 ME 225, the towns of Eddington and Bradley assessed Emera for high voltage transmission lines (Line 390 and Line 396) based on Emera’s own report of what it owned. Even after each town’s assessor questioned the report (because there was a significant increase in valuation over prior years), Emera confirmed its reported valuation. Only much later, almost three years after taxes were committed, did Emera discover and correct its error (it did not own Line 396) and apply for an abatement.

The towns argued that Emera’s mistake constituted an error in valuation, an abatement for which an application must be filed within 185 days of commitment (see 36 M.R.S.A. § 841(1)). Emera’s application, the towns argued, was therefore too late. The Law Court noted, however, that Line 396 had also been taxed to Maine Electric Power Company (its true owner) and that assessing the same line to Emera was double taxation, which is illegal. The error was thus an illegal assessment, which can be abated at any time within three years of commitment (again, see 36 M.R.S.A. § 841(1)). Emera’s application was therefore timely.

At the towns’ request, MMA Staff Attorney Breana N. Gersen filed an amicus curiae or “friend of the court” brief in this case. Although we are disappointed in the Court’s decision, we believe it is distinguishable from the more traditional holding that assessing a taxpayer for more property than he owns is an overvaluation error (see, e.g., City of Rockland v. Rockland Water Co., 82 Me. 188, 19 A. 163 (1889)). The critical difference in this case (at least it seems to us) is that the Court found the very same property to have been assessed to two different taxpayers.

Filing friend of the court briefs is one of the services that MMA Legal Services provides free of charge to our members. If your municipality is involved in appellate litigation that is of statewide significance to municipalities, we invite you to contact us to discuss this special form of assistance. (By R.P.F./B.N.G.)