FERGUSON v. MAINE REVENUE SERVICES - Document No. 20
FERGUSON v. MAINE REVENUE SERVICES - Document No. 20
20
Case 1:05-cv-00179-DBH Document 20 Filed 05/01/2006 Page 1 of 5
DISTRICT OF MAINE
JEREMIAH M. FERGUSON, )
)
Plaintiff )
)
v. ) Civil No. 05-179-B-H
)
MAINE REVENUE SERVICES, )
)
)
Defendant )
Jeremiah Ferguson has filed a pro se complaint seeking an injunction against the
he purchased a car from a dealer for $11,200 in July 2005 and then sold his own car for
$850. When he registered his new vehicle he was denied a $42.50 credit for his tax paid
on the old vehicle, a credit that he would have received had he traded the car in with the
dealer. Because this complaint fails to state an actionable 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim, I
Discussion
Section 1765 of title 36 of the Maine Revised Statutes Annotated provides that
is traded in toward the sale price of another of the same kind of the
following items, the tax imposed by [Maine law] shall be levied only upon
the difference between the sale price of the purchased property and the
trade- in allowance of the property taken in trade....
1
Ferguson has also filed an additional pleading demanding $1000 damages. (Docket No. 15.)
Dockets.Justia.com
Case 1:05-cv-00179-DBH Document 20 Filed 05/01/2006 Page 2 of 5
36 M.R.S.A. § 1765. Ferguson believes that this policy, which does not provide for a
similar treatment of vehicle owners who sell their previous vehicle directly, violates his
right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
Constitution.
In its motion to dismiss the Maine Revenue Service argues for dismissal on three
grounds: this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the case in view of the state's
sovereign immunity; this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the state tax matters
in view of the Federal Tax Injunction Act of 1937; and Ferguson has failed to state a
2
Case 1:05-cv-00179-DBH Document 20 Filed 05/01/2006 Page 3 of 5
(Mot. Dismiss at 10-11)(footnote omitted). In the motion to dismiss the defendants argue
the legislature may have created the sales tax reduction for trade-ins in order to generally
transactions, or encourage the use of a single buyer/seller for specified products. (Mot.
Dismiss at 11.)
Ferguson has filed a response to the motion to dismiss. With respect to the
Maine Revenue Service as the defendant and notes that he served the summons on the
commissioner of the Maine Revenue Service and the Attorney General. He seeks to
amend the complaint (Docket No. 12) to name Rebecca M. Wyke, Commissioner of the
Maine Revenue Service as the sole defendant. With respect to the defendant's second
Case 1:05-cv-00179-DBH Document 20 Filed 05/01/2006 Page 4 of 5
argument, Ferguson argues that the 36 M.R.S.A. § 1765 provision is not a tax, but is
rather a tax credit, thus not subject to the Federal Tax Injunction Act.
Vis-à-vis the defendant's argument that his complaint does not state a claim,
Ferguson argues that the Fourteenth Amendment protects against discriminatory state
action infringing his right to acquire, own, and dispose of property. (Opp'n Mot. Dismiss
at 3.) He defines two classes: Those who "trade- in" and those who buy and sell in
separate transactions. (Id. at 4.) He contends that there "can hardly be a legitimate reason
I am satisfied that this complaint does not state either an equal protection claim or
a due process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment. The difference in taxation
schemes for an individual who trades a used car into a dealer when purchasing a new car
and one who simply sells a used car privately is a rational differentiation between two
individuals who are not similarly situated. The reasons suggested by the State are
plausible and Ferguson has certainly failed to negate those reasons in his response. The
taxation scheme does not infringe upon plaintiff's right to own, acquire or dispose of
property, but merely impacts his ability to obtain a taxation benefit in certain situations.
Because I am satisfied that the complaint fails to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6), I see no need to reach the issues raised by the State's other two
arguments. Even if plaintiff were given leave to amend his complaint to name the
commissioner and clarify that he sought only injunctive relief, thus avoiding the
sovereign immunity issue, it would not change the landscape of the Fourteenth
Amendment claim.
4
Case 1:05-cv-00179-DBH Document 20 Filed 05/01/2006 Page 5 of 5
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above I recommend that the court GRANT the motion to
dismiss.
NOTICE