This page is an unofficial LFoD record and is not legal advice. Verify the document against the official source before relying on it.
Appeal of Keith R. Mader 2000 Revocable Trust et al.
July 17, 2019 - Brief
Case records
Open case pageDocket: 2019-0061
| Date | Record Text | Type | Party | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| June 5, 2020 | Appeal of Keith R. Mader 2000 Revocable Trust et al. | Opinion | Supreme Court | Pre-Reporter |
| November 19, 2019 | Appeal of Keith R. Mader 2000 Revocable Trust Et Al. | Oral argument text | Keith R. Mader 2000 Revocable Trust & a.; Town of Bartlett | |
| July 17, 2019 | Appeal of Keith R. Mader 2000 Revocable Trust, Et Al. Current page | Brief | Respondent | |
| June 17, 2019 | Appeal of Keith R. Mader 2000 Revocable Trust Et Al | Brief | Petitioners |
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
SUPREME COURT
Case No. 2019-0061
APPEAL OF KEITH R. MADER 2000 REVOCABLE TRUST, ET AL.
APPEAL PURSUANT TO RULE 10 FROM AN ORDER OF THE NEW
HAMPSHIRE BOARD OF TAX AND LAND APPEALS
BRIEF FOR THE TOWN OF BARTLETT
TOWN OF BARTLETT
Christopher T. Hilson, Esq.
NH Bar No. 17116
Brendan Avery O’Donnell, Esq.
NH Bar No. 268037
Donahue, Tucker & Ciandella,
PLLC
16 Acadia Lane
Exeter, NH 03833
(603)778-0686
chilson@dtclawyers.com
bodonnell@dtclawyers.com
The Town waives oral argument.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Table of Authorities ………………………………….………………….3
Issues Presented ……………………………………..……………..……5
Statement of the Case …………………………………………...……….6
Statement of Facts ……………………………………………….………7
A. Procedural Background ………………………………….……….7
B. The Taxpayers’ failure to comply with Tax 203.02………………7
Summary of the Argument……………………...………………………
11
Argument…………………………………………………………………12
1. Standard of Review..……………………...………………………12
2. The BTLA properly determined that the Taxpayers failed to comply with the signature and certification requirement..………
12
3. The BTLA properly determined that the Taxpayers’ failure was not due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect ……….………….14
4. Tax 203.02 unambiguously proscribes an attorney from completing the signature and certification requirement on behalf of a taxpayer……………………………………………………….19
5. RSA 76:16 and Tax 203.02 do not violate equal protection because they apply equally to all taxpayers.…………………….…………21
6. Rational basis review is the correct level of scrutiny when analyzing a classification between attorneys-at-law and attorneys-in-fact in laws involving taxation…………………….………………………23
7. The differing treatment of attorneys-at-law and attorneys-in-fact is constitutional under rational basis review.…………….………….26
Conclusion……………………………………………………….………
30
Certificate of Compliance……..….…………………………….…………31
Certificate of Service …………………………………….……………… 31
Table of Authorities
N.H. Cases
Page
Appeal of N.H. Elec. Coop., 170 N.H. 66, 74 (2017)
18
Appeal of Public Serv. Co. of N.H., 171 N.H. 87, 105 (2017)
21
Appeal of Steele Hill Dev., 121 N.H. 881, 885 (1981)
17
Appeal of Wilson, 161 N.H. 659 (2011)……………………………
passim
Arlington American Sample Book Company v. Board of Taxation,
116
N.H. 575, 576 (1976)
16
Community Resources for Justice, Inc. v. City of Manchester, 154 N.H. 748, 762 (2007)
25
Estate of Cargill v. City of Rochester, 119 N.H. 661, 665-67 (1979)…
24
Estate of Robitaille v. N.H. Dep’t of Revenue Admin., 149 N.H. 595, 596-97 (2003)
24, 26
Henderson Holdings at Sugar Hill v. Town of Sugar Hill, 164 N.H. 36, 40-41 (2012)
13
In re Sandra H., 150 N.H. 634, 638 (2004)
21
LSP Ass’n v. Town of Gilford, 142 N.H. 369 (1997)
25
N. Country Envtl. Servs. v. State, 15 N.H. 15, 26 (2008)……………
23, 24
O’Meara’s Case, 164 N.H. 170, 177 (2012)
27
Rollins v. City of Dover, 93 N.H. 448 (1945)
25
Simpson v. Calivas, 139 N.H. 1, 14 (1994)
28
State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003)
20, 23
Verizon New Eng., Inc. v. City of Rochester, 151 N.H. 263, 271 (2004)
24
Federal Cases Int’l Strategies Group, Ltd. v. Greenberg Traurig, LLP, 482 F.3d 1, 8 (1st Cir. 2007)
28
United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241 (1985)……………………………
17
Statutes RSA 71-B:12……………………………………………………………
12
RSA 76:16
passim
RSA 76:16, I(b)…………………………………………………………
12
RSA 76:16, II……………………………………………………………
12
RSA 76:16, III
12, 20, 26
Page
RSA 76:16, III(b)
12
RSA 76:16, III(e)
12
RSA 76:16, III(g)
8, 13, 20
RSA 76:16-a
12, 20
RSA 541……………………………………………………………
12
RSA 564-E…………………………………………………………
28
RSA 564-E:204
22, 27
RSA 564-E:212, (6)
22, 27
Rules and Regulations
N.H. Admin. R. Tax 203.02
passim
N.H. Admin. R. Tax 203.02(b)
13, 23
N.H. Admin. R. Tax 203.02(b)(4)
7
N.H. Admin. R. Tax 203.02(d)
passim
N.H. Rules of Professional Conduct, R. 2.1 to 2.4
27
N.H. Rules of Professional Conduct, R. 3.1 to 3.9
27
N.H. Rules of Professional Conduct, R. 3.7…………………………
28
Other Authorities N.H. Const. Pt. I, Art 2………………………………………………
21
Issues Presented
1. Whether the BTLA properly concluded that the Taxpayers
failed to demonstrate that their failure to comply with N.H. Admin. R., Tax
203.02 was due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect.
2. Whether the BTLA correctly interpreted RSA 76:16 and N.H.
Admin. R., Tax 203.02 as proscribing an attorney from completing the
taxpayer signature and certification requirement required by those laws on
behalf of the Taxpayers.
3. Whether the taxpayer signature and certification requirement
contained in RSA 76:16 and N.H. Admin. R., Tax 203.02 violates the
Taxpayers right to equal protection, where those laws apply equally to all
taxpayers.
Statement of the Case
RSA 76:16 and N.H. Admin. R., Tax 203.02 (hereinafter “Tax
203.02”) require a taxpayer to sign their abatement application, certify that
the facts in the application are true, and certify that the taxpayer has a good
faith basis for seeking an abatement (“signature and certification
requirement”). Tax 203.02 specifically bars an attorney from completing
the signature and certification requirement on behalf of a taxpayer. The
Taxpayers did not complete with the signature and certification
requirement; the Taxpayers’ attorney signed on their behalf. NOA at 631.
The BTLA denied the Taxpayers’ motion to waive application of Tax
203.02 because the Taxpayers’ attorney: (1) knew when he agreed to
represent the Taxpayers that he was going on vacation and returning four
days prior to the filing deadline; (2) failed to review the BTLA’s rules prior
to or during his vacation; and (3) did not attempt to obtain the Taxpayers’
signatures and certifications after returning from vacation. NOA at 63-69.
This appeal followed.
Statement of Facts
2
A. Procedural Background Taxpayers Keith R. Mader 2000 Revocable Trust; Bearfoot Creek, LLC; Robert & Marie McInnis; Slalom Realty Trust; JR Realty Trust; Carol McPhearson; Bryce & Kathi Blair; Eileen A. Figueroa Rev. Tr.; Joseph A. & Mary F. Carlucci Living Tr.; Mark J. and Paula J. Gallagher; TJF Trust; Christopher and Amy Redondi; and Engeocom Bartlett, LLC (collectively the “Taxpayers”), submitted individual abatement applications to the Town on February 28, 2018, requesting that the Town abate their taxes. NOA at 64, ¶2; see also NOA at 79, ¶9(b). The Town denied the Taxpayers’ abatement applications, and the Taxpayers appealed the Town’s denial to the Board of Tax and Land Appeals (“BTLA”). See RSA 76:16-a. On October 20, 2018, the BTLA sent a letter to Randall Cooper, the Taxpayers’ Attorney, inquiring as to whether the Taxpayers signed their abatement applications. BTLA Decision at 1. On October 25, 2018, the Taxpayers responded by filing a motion seeking an “exception” from the BTLA’s taxpayer signature rules. BTLA Decision at 1; NOA at 16; see also N.H. Admin. R., Tax 203.02(b)(4). The BTLA denied the Taxpayers’ motion by written decision on December 3, 2018, and the BTLA denied the Taxpayers’ motion for rehearing on January 10, 2019. B. The Taxpayers’ failure to comply with Tax 203
02
On February 7, 2018, James Rader left a message for Attorney Randall Cooper of Cooper, Cargill and Chant, P.A. (hereinafter collectively “Taxpayer Counsel”), requesting that Taxpayer Counsel assist the Taxpayers with abatement applications. BTLA Decision at 2. That same day, Taxpayer Counsel responded to the Taxpayers via e-mail, communicating his willingness to undertake that representation and stating that: “The only hiccup I have is that I am leaving this Friday [February 9, 2018] for Morocco, and returning on Monday, February 26th. Abatement applications are due to the Board of Selectmen by Thursday, March 1st. That shouldn’t be a problem.” BTLA Decision at 2; NOA at 36. That same day, Taxpayer Counsel additionally forwarded a “Representation Agreement” to the Taxpayers, and Taxpayer Counsel contacted an appraisal firm before leaving for vacation to confirm the firm’s availability to perform an appraisal. NOA at 18, ¶9-10. Taxpayer Counsel stated in an affidavit that he reviewed RSA 76:
16
“to determine the last possible filing date” prior to determining if he could
represent the Taxpayers in light of Taxpayer Counsel’s upcoming vacation.
NOA at 88, ¶4. Notably, RSA 76:16 contains the same signature
requirement contained in the BTLA’s rules. See RSA 76:16, III(g).
Taxpayer Counsel claimed that, at this time, he had “no recollection
or knowledge of the tax payer signature requirement in Section H of the
Abatement Application or Tax 203.02.” NOA at 89, ¶6. Taxpayer Counsel
made no effort to review the BTLA rules or the abatement application form
from February 7 to February 9, 2018, when he left for vacation. App. Br. at
11; NOA at 89, ¶6. Nor is there any indication in the record that Taxpayer
Counsel asked any other attorney or staff at his firm to review the BTLA
rules for filing abatement applications or the abatement application form.
There is no evidence that, during his vacation, Taxpayer Counsel
reviewed the BTLA rules, contacted the Taxpayers, or asked any person in
his law firm to review the BTLA rules. See NOA at 63-70; NOA at 93-96.
Taxpayer Counsel returned on February 26, 2018, but he did not
start working on the abatement applications until February 27, 2018. NOA
at 64, ¶2. Taxpayer Counsel claims that he learned of the signature
requirement on February 27, 2018 when he downloaded the abatement
application form from the BTLA’s website. NOA at 94; NOA at 89, ¶ 8.
Neither Taxpayer Counsel nor anyone at Taxpayer Counsel’s firm
attempted to obtain the Taxpayers’ signatures or sent drafts of the
applications to the Taxpayers for review and approval from the date of
Taxpayers’ Counsel’s formal retention on February 20, 2018 to the
applicable filing deadline. See NOA at 64, ¶2; NOA at 95. Similarly, no
attempt was made to obtain the Taxpayers’ signatures electronically, via
fax, or other medium. NOA at 64, ¶2; NOA at 95. Rather, Taxpayer
Counsel decided that it was “impossible” for him to obtain the Taxpayers’
signatures and complete and file the applications on time. NOA at 89.
Taxpayer Counsel “concluded his own preparation of the abatement
applications and signatures as their ‘attorney at law’ was sufficient, ” and he
completed the abatement applications and signed on behalf of the
Taxpayers on February 27—two full days prior to the filing deadline. NOA
at 64, ¶2; see also NOA at 79, ¶9(b) (Taxpayers stating that “Attorney
Cooper on February 27 made a conscious decision to sign and file the
applications on behalf of his clients”). Taxpayer Counsel submitted the
Taxpayers’ abatement applications by letter dated February 28—one full
day prior to the filing deadline. See NOA at 64, ¶2; see also, NOA at 79,
¶9(b).
Summary of the Argument
1. The BTLA properly dismissed the Taxpayers’ abatement
appeals because the Taxpayers’ did not complete the signature and
certification requirement set forth in RSA 76:16 and Tax 203.02. The
BTLA properly denied the Taxpayers’ motion to waive application of Tax
203.02 because the Taxpayers’ failure was not due to reasonable cause and
not willful neglect. The BTLA’s decision was supported by the evidence
that Taxpayer Counsel: (1) knew when he agreed to represent the
Taxpayers that he was going on vacation and returning four days prior to
the filing deadline; (2) failed to review the BTLA’s rules prior to or during
his vacation; and (3) did not attempt to obtain either original or facsimile
signatures and certifications from the Taxpayers after returning from
vacation.
2. Tax 203.02 unambiguously provides that an attorney cannot
complete the signature and certification requirement on behalf of a
taxpayer. Because the regulation is unambiguous, the Taxpayers’
arguments regarding whether an attorney should be able to complete the
signature and certification requirement on behalf of a taxpayer are
irrelevant.
3. RSA 76:16 and Tax 203.02 do not violate the Taxpayers’
rights to equal protection because they apply equally to all taxpayers. The
statutory and regulatory scheme authorizing an attorney-in-fact, but not an
attorney-at-law, to complete the signature and certification requirement
does not constitute an equal protection violation because all taxpayers have
an equal right to use an attorney-in-fact, and no taxpayers are authorized to
use an attorney-at-law.
Argument 1. Standard of Review Appeals from BTLA decisions are governed by RSA chapter 541. See RSA 71-B:12; 76:16-a, V. The BTLA’s factual findings are deemed prima facie lawful and reasonable. Appeal of Wilson, 161 N.H
659, 661
(2011). The Taxpayers can only overcome that presumption by “showing
that there was no evidence from which the BTLA could conclude as it did.”
Id. (quotation omitted). The Board’s decision shall not be set aside or
vacated except for error of law, unless the appellant demonstrates by a clear
preponderance of the evidence that the Board’s decision was unjust or
unreasonable. Id.
2. The BTLA properly determined that the Taxpayers failed to
comply with the signature and certification requirement.
A taxpayer’s right to apply for a tax abatement is governed by
statute. See RSA 76:16, I(b). The BTLA prescribes a standard form for
taxpayers to use when applying for an abatement. See RSA 76:16, II. The
BTLA is required by statute to include certain information in that standard
abatement application form, and the BTLA can include “such other
information deemed necessary by the board.” RSA 76:16, III. The form
must include sections for “information concerning the person applying, the
property for which the abatement is sought and other properties in the
municipality owned by the person applying.” RSA 76:16, III(b). The form
must include “[a] section requiring the applicant to state with specificity the
reasons supporting the abatement request.” RSA 76:16, III(e). In addition
to requiring this information, the form must include “[a] place for the
applicant’s signature with a certification by the person applying that the
application has a good faith basis and the facts in the application are true.”
RSA 76:16, III(g).
The BTLA’s rules specifically provide that “[t]he taxpayer shall sign
the abatement application” and “[a]n attorney or agent shall not sign the
abatement application for the taxpayer.” Tax 203.02(b), (d). The rule goes
on to expressly state that the “lack of the taxpayer’s signature and
certification shall preclude an RSA 76:16-a appeal to the board unless it
was due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect.” Tax 203.02(d); see
also Appeal of Wilson, 161 N.H. 663 (concluding that Tax 203.02(d) is
lawful and consistent with the Legislature’s statutorily prescribed tax
abatement process). This Court has previously ruled that the BTLA could
properly dismiss taxpayer abatement appeals on the basis that a non-
attorney representative signed the abatement applications, in contravention
of Tax 203.02(d). Appeal of Wilson, 161 N.H. at 662-65; see also
Henderson Holdings at Sugar Hill v. Town of Sugar Hill, 164 N.H. 36, 40-
41 (2012) (a municipality may deny a taxpayer’s request for an abatement
for failure to comply with the signature and certification requirement set
forth in Tax 203.02).
The BTLA found, and the Taxpayers do not dispute, that the
Taxpayers did not sign their respective tax abatement applications. NOA at
63-64. Nor did the Taxpayers certify that the facts in the application were
true and that the person applying had a good faith basis for seeking a tax
abatement. NOA at 63-64. Instead, Taxpayer Counsel signed the
abatement applications for the Taxpayers, in direct contravention of Tax
203.02(d). NOA at 64.
Therefore, the Taxpayers did not comply with Tax 203.02(d), and
the BTLA could properly dismiss their appeal unless the Taxpayers
demonstrated that their failure was “due to reasonable cause and not willful
neglect.” See Tax 203.02(d).
3. The BTLA properly determined that the Taxpayers’ failure was
not due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect.
The BTLA determined that the Taxpayers’ failure was not due to reasonable cause. The BTLA’s finding is supported by the evidence that: (1) Taxpayer Counsel willfully accepted the Taxpayers’ case knowing he would only have four days to complete the abatement applications; (2) Taxpayer Counsel did not take steps prior to or during his vacation to obtain the statutorily required signatures and certifications, either personally or through other firm attorneys or support staff; and (3) Taxpayer Counsel “discovered” the signature and certification requirement at least three days prior to the deadline, but he made no attempt to contact the Taxpayers to obtain their signatures and certifications. A. Prior to agreeing to take the Taxpayers’ case, Taxpayer Counsel knew that he was scheduled to go on vacation and that he would only have four days after returning from vacation to complete the Taxpayers’ abatement applications. Thus, Taxpayer Counsel willfully accepted the Taxpayers’ case knowing he would only have four days to review the applicable law, to complete the abatement applications, and to file the abatement applications by the March 1 deadline. B. Despite knowing that he would only have four days after returning from vacation to complete the abatement applications, Taxpayer Counsel made only cursory efforts prior to leaving for vacation to review the applicable law and procedural rules.3 Nor did Taxpayer Counsel take any steps to have another attorney or support staff in his office review the applicable law and procedural requirements during Taxpayer Counsel’s vacation. NOA at 69 n.5. Thus, Taxpayer Counsel consciously placed himself in the position of having only four days to review the applicable law and complete the abatement applications. C. The BTLA found that Taxpayer Counsel had four days after returning from vacation to obtain the Taxpayers’ signatures and certifications. NOA at 69 n.5. Taxpayer Counsel acknowledges that he was aware of the signature and certification requirement at least as of February 27. NOA at 94. Taxpayer Counsel also worked in an office with other attorneys and support staff. BTLA Order at 7 n.5. Nevertheless, Taxpayer Counsel made no effort to obtain the signatures and certifications; he unilaterally concluded three days prior to the March 1 deadline that it was “impossible” to obtain the signatures and certifications. NOA at 64; NOA at 95; see also NOA at 79, ¶9(b). Similarly, although Tax 203
02
does not require that signatures be original, no evidence was submitted regarding the impossibility of gathering photocopy, electronic, facsimile, or similar non-original signatures prior to the deadline. See generally NOA at 95. No attempt was apparently made to gather such non-original signatures. NOA at 95. The BTLA did not need to accept Taxpayer Counsel’s conclusory claim that it was impossible to comply with the law, particularly because the Taxpayers provided no specific reasons to support Taxpayer Counsel’s claim that it was impossible to obtain the signatures and certifications by the March 1 filing deadline, and provided no explanation why electronic, facsimile, or similar signatures could not be collected. NOA at 69 n.5; NOA at 95. The BTLA concluded that Taxpayer Counsel “made a conscious decision not to obtain the Taxpayers’ signatures and certifications prior to filing abatement application on their behalves.” NOA at 69. In sum, the BTLA reasonably determined, and the record amply supports, that the Taxpayers failed to demonstrate that their failure to comply with the signature and certification requirement was due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect, and the BTLA’s determination is supported by the evidence. See Appeal of Wilson, 161 N.H. 661 (the BTLA’s factual findings will be upheld if there is any evidence in the record to support them). D. The Taxpayers argue that their failure to comply with the signature and certification requirement was reasonable and not the result of willful neglect. The Taxpayers argue that their failure was reasonably caused by the delay in Taxpayer Counsel returning from vacation, and that Taxpayer Counsel’s “failure... to become aware of the taxpayer signature requirement prior to his [return from vacation] was not willful neglect.” Taxpayer Br. at 22-25. As the BTLA correctly noted, Taxpayer Counsel’s failure to “review, understand and/or comply with these requirements does not constitute ‘reasonable cause and not willful neglect.” See Arlington American Sample Book Company v. Board of Taxation, 116 N.H
575, 576
(1976) (affirming dismissal of taxpayer’s untimely appeal where taxpayer
instructed attorney to file an appeal but the attorney failed to timely file the
appeal, reasoning that dismissal was proper even if delay was “due solely to
oversight or omission by the taxpayer’s counsel”). Taxpayer Counsel told
the Taxpayers that he could represent them, fully aware of his impending
vacation and the deadline for filing tax abatements. Taxpayer Counsel’s
failure to review and understand RSA 76:16, Tax 203.02, and the BTLA’s
standard tax abatement form prior to agreeing to accept the Taxpayers’
time-sensitive abatement appeal is fully imputable to the Taxpayers
4
Furthermore, the Taxpayers ignore the fact that Taxpayer Counsel had four days upon returning from vacation, and three days upon discovering the signature and certification requirement, to attempt to obtain the original or facsimile signatures and certifications of the Taxpayers. See Taxpayer Br. at 22-27 (discussing whether it was willful neglect for Taxpayer Counsel to fail to discover the signature and certification requirement prior to returning from his vacation, but ignoring Taxpayer Counsel’s failure to comply with the requirement following his return and discovery of the requirement). The Taxpayers, argued before the BTLA that complying with the requirement during this time frame was “impossible, ” relying upon Taxpayer Counsel’s unsupported claim of impossibility. NOA at 89. However, the Taxpayers bore the burden of proving that their failure was due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect, and the BTLA did not credit Taxpayer Counsel’s unsupported statement. NOA at 94-95; see also Appeal of N.H. Elec. Coop., 170 N.H. 66, 74 (BTLA is not required to credit a witness’s testimony). For example, the BTLA noted that all the Taxpayers5 “are property owners in New Hampshire and nothing in the record reflects any attempt by the Taxpayers’ attorney to contact any of them regarding the signature and certification requirements or to satisfy these requirements via alternative means (such as through an electronic submittal) prior to the March 1 statutory deadline.”6 NOA at 95. Taxpayer Counsel acknowledged that he discovered the signature and certification requirement on February 27, giving him three days to comply with the requirement. NOA at 64; NOA at 89, ¶8. Nevertheless, there is no evidence that Taxpayer Counsel made any attempt to comply with the signature and certification requirement between then and the deadline. NOA at 95. This evidence alone is sufficient for the BTLA to conclude that the Taxpayers failed to demonstrate that their failure was due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect. See Appeal of Wilson,
161
N.H. at 661 (BTLA’s decision will be upheld if there is any evidence from
which the BTLA could conclude as it did).
4. Tax 203.02 unambiguously prohibits an attorney from
completing the signature and certification requirement on behalf of a
taxpayer.
The Taxpayers make numerous arguments regarding why an attorney’s signature should be sufficient to meet the signature and certification requirement. See Taxpayers’ Br. at 27-38. According to the Taxpayers, an attorney should be able to sign and certify on behalf of the taxpayer based on the scope of an attorney-client relationship because, unlike with non-attorney representatives, the attorney is subject to the rules of professional conduct, which make their certification more reliable. See Taxpayers’ Br. at 27-38. However, the issue is not whether an attorney should be able to complete the signature and certification requirement. The issue is whether an attorney is authorized by the statutory and regulatory scheme to complete the signature and certification requirement. Thus, this is an issue of statutory interpretation. In engaging in statutory interpretation, this Court first examines the language of the statute or regulation and ascribes the plain and ordinary meanings to the words used. See Appeal of Wilson, 161 N.H. at
662
(engaging in statutory interpretation of RSA 76:16 and Tax 203.02).
Legislative intent is interpreted from the statute as written, and this Court
will not consider what the legislature might have said or add language that
the legislature did not see fit to include. Id.
RSA 76:16 plainly requires the BTLA to prescribe a form for
applying for tax abatements, which must include “[a] place for the
applicant’s signature with a certification by the person applying that the
application has a good faith basis and the facts in the application are true.”
RSA 76:16, III(g). RSA 76:16 also authorizes the BTLA to require “such
other information deemed necessary by the board.” RSA 76:16, III.
Consistent with this statutory requirement, the BTLA promulgated Tax
203.02, which provides:
The taxpayer shall sign the abatement application. An
attorney or agent shall not sign the abatement application for
the taxpayer. An attorney or agent may, however, sign the
abatement application along with the taxpayer to indicate the
attorney's or agent's representation. The lack of the
taxpayer’s signature and certification shall preclude an RSA
76:16-a appeal to the board unless it was due to reasonable
cause and not willful neglect.
N.H. Admin. R., Tax 203.02(d) (emphases added). This Court has
previously concluded that Tax 203.02(d) is consistent with the statutory
scheme for tax abatements. See Appeal of Wilson, 161 N.H. at 663.
RSA 76:16 and Tax 203.02(d) clearly provide that an attorney
cannot sign the abatement application for a taxpayer.7 The Taxpayers’
arguments regarding whether an attorney should be able to sign the
abatement application on behalf of a taxpayer are in direct conflict with the
plain language of these laws. An attorney completing the signature and
certification requirement cannot comply with the law when the law
explicitly proscribes the attorney from taking that action on behalf of the
taxpayer. Accordingly, the Taxpayers’ interpretation of the laws must fail
because it would require this Court to ignore the plain language of the
statutes and regulations and to read additional language into the statutes and
regulations that the legislature and the BTLA did not see fit to include. See
Appeal of Wilson, 161 N.H. at 662; see also Appeal of Public Serv. Co. of
N.H., 171 N.H. 87, 105 (2017) (decisions regarding the wisdom of
particular laws properly belong to the legislature, not the court).
5. RSA 76:16 and Tax 203.02 do not violate equal protection
because they apply equally to all taxpayers.
“The Federal and State Equal Protection Clauses do not ‘demand that a statute necessarily apply equally to all persons or require things which are different in fact to be treated in law as though they were the same.’” In re Sandra H., 150 N.H. 634, 638 (2004)
150
N.H. at 638 (quotations, citation, and brackets omitted). Where a
classification does not involve a suspect class, a fundamental right, or an
important substantive right, this Court applies the rational basis test. Id.
The Taxpayers argue that the procedural taxpayer signature and
certification requirement of RSA 76:16 and Tax 203.02(d) violates their
right to equal protection. The Taxpayers argue that a taxpayer represented
by an attorney-at-law is treated differently than a taxpayer’s attorney-in-
fact.
Although the Taxpayers try to frame their argument as whether two
classes of taxpayers are treated differently, it is clear from their arguments
that the classification they challenge is the unequal treatment of two types
of agents (attorneys-at-law and attorneys-in-fact). This distinction is
important because RSA 76:16 and Tax 203.02(d) apply equally to all
taxpayers. If all taxpayers are treated equally under the law, there can be
no equal protection violation.
RSA 76:16 and Tax 203.02(d) do not create a classification among
taxpayers, and the laws do not treat taxpayers differently. Rather, these
laws prescribe whether a taxpayer may use an agent to fulfil the signature
and certification requirement, and the laws apply equally to all taxpayers.
Every taxpayer can personally complete the signature and certification
requirement. See RSA 76:16, Tax 203.02(d). Every taxpayer can grant a
power of attorney which authorizes the agent to file a tax abatement
complaint, including completing the signature and certification
requirement. See RSA 564-E:204; RSA 564-E:212, (6) (authorizing an
attorney-in-fact to verify pleadings). No taxpayer is allowed to have a non-
attorney representative or an attorney-at-law complete the signature and
certification requirement. See RSA 76:16; Tax 203.02(d). In other words,
every taxpayer is subject to the same procedural requirements for filing a
tax abatement and has the same tools available for completing those
procedural requirements. Therefore, RSA 76:16 and Tax 203.02(b), (d)
apply equally to all taxpayers, and there is no equal protection violation
because all taxpayers are treated equally. See N. Country Envtl. Servs. v.
State, 15 N.H. 15, 26 (2008).
Viewed in this light, it is apparent that the Taxpayers’ real complaint
is that Taxpayer Counsel (an attorney-at-law) does not have the same rights
under the law as an agent acting pursuant to a power of attorney (an
attorney-in-fact). However, that equal protection complaint belongs to an
attorney-at-law, such as Taxpayer Counsel, not to the Taxpayers, who
would lack standing to raise such a claim. Regardless, the Taxpayers only
raised an equal protection challenge alleging that certain taxpayers are
treated unequally; the Taxpayers did not preserve an equal protection
challenge on the grounds that attorneys-at-law are treated unequally to
attorneys-in-fact. See State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003) (issues
not raised in a notice of appeal are not preserved for appellate review).
Therefore, because RSA 76:16 and Tax 203.02(b), (d) require all
taxpayers to complete the signature and certification requirement, and
because all taxpayers have the same right to alternatively grant a power of
attorney for an agent to complete the signature and certification
requirement, all taxpayers are treated equally and there can be no equal
protection violation.
6. Rational basis review is the correct level of scrutiny when
analyzing a classification between attorneys-at-law and attorneys-in-
fact in laws involving taxation.
Even if this Court agrees with the Taxpayers that they are treated unequally compared to another class of taxpayers, RSA 76:16 and Tax 203.02 do not violate the Taxpayers’ equal protection rights because the classification between attorneys-at-law and attorneys-in-fact is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. This Court has repeatedly held that the proper standard of review for an equal protection challenge to a law involving classifications of taxpayers is the rational basis test. See, e.g., N. Country Envtl Servs., 157 N.H. at 25- 26 (applying rational basis test to taxpayer’s equal protection challenge of a classification contained in a tax exemption statute); Verizon New Eng., Inc. v. City of Rochester, 151 N.H. 263, 271 (2004)
151
N.H. at 270. Therefore, this Court should follow its precedent and apply
the rational basis test to the Taxpayers’ equal protection challenge.
The Taxpayers do not address the cases in which this Court has
applied the rational basis test in analyzing taxpayer classification equal
protection challenges. Instead, the Taxpayers argue that this Court should
review their equal protection challenge under intermediate scrutiny because
the “right to apply for an abatement” is an “important substantive right.”
However, the Taxpayers have not cited a single case where this Court
applied intermediate scrutiny when considering an equal protection
challenge to a taxation law. Nor have the Taxpayers cited any cases in
which this Court has held that the “right to apply for an abatement” is an
“important substantive right.” The cases that the Taxpayers cite challenge
the proportionality of particular assessments, but those cases do not involve
equal protection challenges and do not rule that taxation implicates a
“substantive right.” See LSP Ass’n v. Town of Gilford, 142 N.H. 369
(1997) (taxpayer did not raise an equal protection challenge); Rollins v.
City of Dover, 93 N.H. 448 (1945) (taxpayer did not raise an equal
protection challenge). The one case that the Taxpayers cite in which this
Court applied intermediate scrutiny when analyzing an equal protection
challenge did not involve taxation—it involved whether a zoning ordinance
infringed upon the right to use and enjoy property. See Community
Resources for Justice, Inc. v. City of Manchester, 154 N.H. 748, 762 (2007)
(equal protection challenge of zoning ordinance for infringing upon the
right to use and enjoy property). In sum, the cases that the Taxpayers cite
provide no basis for deviating from this Court’s established precedent of
applying the rational basis test to equal protection challenges based on
taxpayer classification.
7. The differing treatment of attorneys-at-law and attorneys-in-fact
is constitutional under rational basis review.
Under the rational basis test, laws are presumed to be valid and will
be upheld if the classification is rationally related to a legitimate state
interest. Estate of Robitaille, 149 N.H. at 596-97. The party challenging
the law has the burden of proving that the classification is arbitrary or
without some reasonable justification. Id. at 597.
The BTLA has a legitimate interest in requiring a taxpayer to
comply with the signature and certification requirement. “[T]he
information required by RSA 76:16, III, including the taxpayer’s signature
and certification that the information submitted is true, affects the right to
seek tax relief.” Appeal of Wilson, 161 N.H. at 663. Thus, the signature
and certification requirement are both an evidentiary and procedural
safeguard designed to ensure that the BTLA has the necessary information
to process an abatement request. Id. at 663-64. Additionally, the signature
and certification requirement ensures that taxpayers believe they have a
good faith basis for seeking an abatement, thereby reducing the strain on
municipal and state resources that would otherwise be caused by taxpayers
bringing abatement applications without a good faith basis for doing so.
The signature and certification requirement is rationally related to
these government interests because a taxpayer represented by an attorney-
at-law is not similarly situated to a taxpayer’s attorney-in-fact. There are
two key distinctions between the authority of an attorney-at-law and an
attorney-in-fact: (1) they do not have an equal right to make decisions on
behalf of a taxpayer; and (2) they do not have an equal right to give
evidence on behalf of the taxpayer’s interests.
A. An attorney-in-fact can make decisions on behalf of the
taxpayer; an attorney-at-law cannot.
First, an attorney-at-law is a counselor, an advisor. The existence of
an attorney-client relationship does not grant the attorney authority to make
decisions on behalf of a client. For example, an attorney-at-law can
properly advise or advocate for a client, but that attorney cannot make
decisions for the client such as whether to initiate a lawsuit. See N.H.
Rules of Professional Conduct, R. 2.1 to 2.4 (lawyer acting as an advisor);
N.H. Rules of Professional Conduct, R. 3.1 to 3.9 (lawyer acting as an
advocate); see, e.g., O’Meara’s Case, 164 N.H. 170, 177 (2012) (affirming
the sanction of an attorney-at-law for making a settlement offer without the
client’s authorization, i.e., sanctioning the attorney for making the decision
to make a settlement offer). Thus, an attorney-at-law can advise a client to
file for an abatement, and the attorney-at-law can file for an abatement at
the direction of the taxpayer. However, the attorney-at-law cannot make
the decision to file for an abatement on behalf of the taxpayer.
Conversely, if a person holds a taxpayer’s power of attorney, and
that power of attorney grants “general authority with respect to real
property, ” the agent is authorized by statute to manage or conserve an
interest in property by contesting taxes or applying for refunds of taxes.
See RSA 564-E:204. Thus, the existence of such a power of attorney
grants the holder the power to initiate a lawsuit on behalf of the taxpayer.
However, unlike with an attorney-at-law, the holder of such a power of
attorney also has statutory authority to make the decision to file for an
abatement of taxes. See RSA 564-E:204; see also RSA 564-E:212, (6) (a
power of attorney granting an agent authority with respect to claims and
litigation authorizes the agent to “verify pleadings”).
Consequently, in a situation where an attorney-at-law and an
attorney-in-fact each believes that filing for an abatement is in the
taxpayer’s best interests and would conserve the taxpayer’s property
interest, only the attorney-in-fact has the authority to make the decision to
actually file for an abatement. This distinction is readily apparent
considering that an attorney-in-fact can hire an attorney-at-law for advice
and advocacy, and a client can grant an attorney-at-law a power of attorney,
which conveys different authority than the attorney client relationship. See
Int’l Strategies Group, Ltd. v. Greenberg Traurig, LLP, 482 F.3d 1, 8 (1st
Cir. 2007) (noting that “[a] power of attorney establishes the relationship of
attorney-in-fact, which is an agency relationship different from the
relationship of an attorney-at-law” (quotation omitted)).
B. An attorney-in-fact can testify and give evidence on behalf of
a taxpayer; an attorney-at-law cannot.
Second, an attorney-at-law cannot both represent a client and testify on their behalf. See N.H. Rules of Professional Conduct, R. 3.7. Conversely, an agent holding a power of attorney is not limited in this regard. See RSA chapter 564-E. This is particularly relevant in the context of actions for abatement of taxes because the taxpayer in an abatement action may testify as to the value of their property. See Simpson v. Calivas, 139 N.H. 1, 14 (1994)
161
N.H. at 663-64. The signature and certification requirement ensures that a
person with the right to make a claim personally believes that the other
evidence in the application is true and that the person has a good faith basis
for applying for the abatement. Thus, when a taxpayer, or a person holding
a power of attorney to manage the taxpayer’s real estate, completes the
signature and certification requirement, the person with the right to
maintain an abatement action is attesting to what he or she personally
believes, which is relevant evidence in the abatement action.8 Conversely,
when an attorney-at-law completes the signature and certification
requirement on behalf of the taxpayer, the attorney-at-law is only attesting
to what the attorney-at-law believes, or what the attorney-at-law thinks the
taxpayer believes.
Therefore, for the purposes of the signature and certification
requirement, attorneys-at-law and attorneys-in-fact are not similarly
situated, and those differences are rationally reflected in the law’s differing
treatment of those types of agency relationships. Thus, RSA 76:16 and Tax
203.02(d) do not violate the Taxpayers’ right to equal protection because
the differing treatment of attorneys-in-fact and attorneys-at-law does is
rationally related to the state’s legitimate interests.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Town respectfully requests that this
Honorable Court affirm the BTLA’s judgment.
Respectfully submitted,
TOWN OF BARTLETT
By its attorneys,
DONAHUE, TUCKER &
CIANDELLA, PLLC
Date: July 17, 2019
By: /s/ Christopher T. Hilson
Christopher T. Hilson, Esquire
N.H. Bar No. 17116
By:/s/ Brendan A. O’Donnell Brendan Avery O’Donnell, Esquire N.H. Bar No. 268037 16 Acadia Lane Exeter, NH
03833
(603)778-0686
chilson@dtclawyers.com
bodonnell@dtclawyers.com
Certification of Compliance
This brief complies with the word limit set forth in Supreme Court
Rule 16(11), containing 6561 words (exclusive of the cover page and all
tables).
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that on July 17, 2019 that a copy of the foregoing
was forwarded to opposing counsel via the Supreme Court’s electronic
filing system.
/s/ Christopher T. Hilson
Christopher T. Hilson, Esquire
Footnotes
-
NOA refers to the Taxpayers’ Notice of Appeal.
-
The pertinent facts concerning the lack of necessary taxpayer signatures do not appear to be in dispute.
-
Taxpayer Counsel claims that he reviewed RSA 76:16 prior to leaving for vacation, but only discovered the signature and certification requirement upon reviewing the BTLA’s rules on February 27. Both RSA 76:16 and the BTLA’s rules contain the signature and certification requirement. Thus, Taxpayer Counsel, who reviewed RSA 76:16 and has experience handling tax abatements, should have been aware of the signature and certification requirement prior to leaving for vacation.
-
The United States Supreme Court similarly analyzed “reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect” in the context of a client relying on an attorney, who failed to comply with procedural requirements. United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241 (1985); see also Appeal of Steele Hill Dev., 121 N.H. 881, 885 (1981) (relying upon federal case law when analyzing whether a taxpayer’s failure to timely file with the Board of Taxation was due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect). The United States Supreme Court reasoned that, while it is reasonable for a taxpayer to rely upon the substantive advice of an accountant or attorney, that reliance cannot function as a substitute for compliance with unambiguous procedural requirements. Boyle, 469 U.S. at 251. Because it “requires no special training or effort to ascertain a deadline and make sure that it is met, ” the “failure to make a timely filing of a tax return is not excused by the taxpayer’s reliance on an agent, and such reliance is not ‘reasonable cause’ for a late filing.” Id. at 252. Here, RSA 76:16, Tax 203.02(d), and construing case law all unambiguously require the Taxpayer to personally sign their abatement application, and the BTLA provides a standard abatement application form that includes the signature and certification requirement and clearly states that the applicant must sign the application even if a representative, attorney, or other advocate completes the application. Thus, the Taxpayers’ reliance on Taxpayer Counsel does not excuse their fa ilure to comply with an unambiguous procedural requirement.
-
Furthermore, the fact that Taxpayer Counsel needed to obtain the signatures and certifications of thirteen taxpayers, as opposed to just one taxpayer, is immaterial. Each of the Taxpayers filed an individual abatement application, and the signature and certification requirement applied to each Taxpayer individually. 6 Similarly, the Taxpayers did not establish that it was impossible for them to have signed and certified their abatement applications and sent them by overnight mail to Taxpayer Counsel, or to scan or fax their signatures and certifications to Taxpayer Counsel.
-
Other than an offhand reference to an ultra vires exercise of regulatory authority on page 16 of their Brief, the Taxpayers’ have not argued that Tax 203.02 was improperly enacted or that the regulation exceeded the BTLA’s authority. Therefore, the only preserved issue before this Court regarding the meaning of RSA 76:16 and Tax 203.02 is whether those laws by their terms pr ohibit an attorney from signing an abatement application on behalf of a taxpayer. See, e.g., State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003) (“we confine our review to only those issues that the defendant has fully briefed”).
-
This is consistent with the common usage of powers of attorney. When a person is empowered pursuant to a power of attorney, he or she is often in place to generally manage the affairs, assets and properties of the principal, especially where necessary due to incapacity of the principal. A person in such a role will often possess first-hand knowledge concerning the property of the principal, such that the abatement application may be executed and certified with first -hand knowledge. In contrast, the engagement of an attorney-at-law is normally on a transactional basis, where all information concerning the property of the client originates with the client, and the attorney typically does not have first-hand knowledge of the information recited in the abatement application. Because Taxpayer Counsel lacked personal knowledge of the properties, he relied solely upon public information. Due to this lack of personal knowledge, Taxpayer Counsel’s signature and certification lacked the scope and force that the signature and certification of the Taxpayers, or any duly authorized attorney-in-fact, would have carried.