Blockbuster, Inc. v. White
Blockbuster, Inc. v. White
Opinion
We granted Blockbuster, Inc., permission to appeal from an interlocutory order pursuant to Rule 5, Ala.R.App.P. The appeal is from the trial court's order denying Blockbuster's motion to dismiss a complaint filed by Thomas B. White. White sought damages from Blockbuster for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, fraud, negligence, and conversion. White also sought to have this action certified as *Page 44 a class action pursuant to Rule 23, Ala.R.Civ.P.
Blockbuster is engaged in the business of renting movie videos and video games to customers. White alleged that he had been a Blockbuster customer for six years and that Blockbuster included in its rental charges to its customers a rental tax imposed upon Blockbuster by Ala. Code 1975, §
Alabama Code 1975, §
"In addition to all other taxes now imposed by law, there is hereby levied and shall be collected as herein provided a privilege or license tax on each person engaging or continuing within this state in the business of leasing or renting tangible personal property at the rate of four percent of the gross proceeds derived by the lessor from the lease or rental of tangible personal property. . . ."1
This appeal involves the following questions of law:
"A. Does §
40-12-222 et seq., the `Rental Tax Statute,' permit a private cause of action where there is no express language in the statute or legislative intent to indicate that such a right exists?"B. Is Blockbuster's collection of the Rental Tax from its customers authorized by Alabama law?"
(Petition for permission to appeal at p. 6.)
"One claiming a private right of action within a statutory scheme must show clear evidence of a legislative intent to impose civil liability for a violation of the statute." American Auto. Ins. Co. v. McDonald
Blockbuster argues that no private cause of action is created by §
White does not attempt to show clear evidence of a legislative intent to create a private right of action; in his brief to the Court, he admits that there was no such legislative intent:
"White agrees that there was no intent by the legislature to create a private cause of action when the Rental Tax Code was adopted."
(White's brief at p. 4.)
We agree that there is no private cause of action under §
White contends that he is not attempting to assert a private right of action under the Rental Tax Statute, but argues that he is merely seeking to recoup under common-law causes of action that which was taken from him by Blockbuster. *Page 45
Each of White's common-law causes of action is predicated upon Blockbuster's alleged violation of §
We granted Blockbuster's permissive appeal to address whether §
We also granted Blockbuster's permissive appeal to address whether Blockbuster's collection of the rental tax from its customers was authorized by Alabama law. White contends that it was not, and that is the gravamen of his claims against Blockbuster.
Alabama's sales tax is a direct tax on the purchaser, and it is unlawful for one who sells goods not to add the tax to the sales price and collect it from the purchaser, and it is unlawful for the seller to refund to the purchaser all or any part of this sales tax. Ala. Code 1975, §
Before the trial court's denial of the motion to dismiss, there had been instructive, but nonbinding, revenue rulings issued by the Alabama Department of Revenue; those rulings indicate that the rental tax could be billed to or passed on to the lessee as a tax or as an additional cost of the lease. Ala. Admin. Code (Dep't of Rev.), chapter
*Page 46"To amend Sections
40-12-220 and40-12-222 , Code of Alabama 1975, relating to a privilege or license tax on each person engaged in the business of leasing or renting tangible personal property in this state; to clarify that such state or local privilege or license tax may be passed on to the lessee by adding such tax to the leasing price
or otherwise; . . . to make the provisions of the act retroactive to January 1, 1988."
(Emphasis added.)
Section 1 of Act No.
"The provisions of this act shall have retroactive effect to January 1, 1988."
The Rental Tax Statute thus covers the 1994-2000 period during which White claims that Blockbuster overcharged him by passing this tax on to him as a lessee.
Act No.
"Section 2. . . . It is also the intent of the Legislature to permit lessors of tangible personal property to pass on to lessees such license or privileges taxes by adding such taxes to the leasing price or otherwise. . . . The purpose of this amendatory act is to clarify and insure the implementation of the actual purpose and original intent of the Legislature when it enacted this article.
"Section 3. Sections
40-12-220 and40-12-222 , Code of Alabama 1975, are amended to read as follows:
"`. . . .
"`§
"`. . . .
"`(b) Notwithstanding the above, nothing shall prohibit a lessor subject to a state or local privilege or license tax from passing such amounts on to a lessee by adding such taxes to the leasing price or otherwise. . . .'"
(Emphasis added.)
In Ex parte Disco Aluminum Products Co.,
Blockbuster was authorized by Alabama law to pass along the rental tax to its customers. Therefore, the trial court's order denying Blockbuster's motion is reversed and the case is remanded for an order or further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Moore, C.J., and Lyons, Johnstone, and Woodall, JJ., concur.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Blockbuster, Inc. v. Thomas B. White.
- Cited By
- 16 cases
- Status
- Published