High court denies automaker’s refund

PORTLAND – Maine’s highest court ruled Tuesday that DaimlerChrysler Corp. is not entitled to a refund of sales tax reimbursements it made to consumers when it repurchased their defective vehicles under the Maine Lemon Law.

In upholding a lower court decision, the Supreme Judicial Court unanimously denied the automaker’s bid to recover the nearly $51,000 in sales tax it refunded to owners of 58 vehicles it replaced or repurchased between 1996 and 2003 under the statute.

The Maine Lemon Law, adopted in 1983, requires manufacturers to provide refunds or replacements for new vehicles when a substantial defect cannot be repaired. Refunds include all “collateral charges,” including sales tax and registration fees.

DaimlerChrysler sought refunds under a state law that allows taxpayers to apply for them in cases involving overpayments.

The court, however, rejected the company’s claim that it qualifies as a taxpayer, saying it does not pay taxes to the state and thus does not meet that definition. The justices went on to brush aside arguments that DaimlerChrysler was the consumer’s successor as taxpayer and that in refunding what the consumer paid in taxes it was acting as an agent of the state.

The justices noted that there is nothing in the Maine Lemon Law that equates to a statutory provision allowing retailers to obtain refunds for any sales tax that the retailer has subsequently reimbursed to the consumer.

“Clearly, had the Legislature wanted to provide motor vehicle manufacturers with a refund it could have easily done so, as evidenced by the explicit mechanism the Legislature provided retailers for obtaining a refund,” Justice Warren Silver wrote.

The court also rejected DaimlerChrysler’s constitutional arguments, denying the company’s right to a jury trial and its claims of denial of due process and violation of equal protection.

The 19-page opinion included no comment by the court on whether it was fair for the automaker to make the reimbursement and then be denied a refund by the state.

John Paterson, a Portland attorney who worked on the case on behalf of DaimlerChrysler, said his client was the victim of “an odd quirk of the statute.”

“Ironically, if the dealer had made the refund, then the dealer could get it back. But the dealer is not involved in the Lemon Law proceeding. That’s just between the manufacturer and the consumer,” he said.

Paterson suggested that the only remedy in light of the court’s ruling was for the Legislature to change the statute, but that the state’s budgetary squeeze made it unlikely that such an amendment could win approval.

Assistant Attorney General Thomas Knowlton, who represented the state, noted that auto manufacturers also take a hit under the Maine Lemon Law because they sell cars to dealers at wholesale rates but are required to reimburse consumers at the retail price.

Knowlton said that outcome was a clear consequence of state law, as was the way that automakers get stuck with paying the tax reimbursements.

“We don’t see that there’s anything unfair about it. That’s the way the Legislature has set out the statutory framework for providing refunds,” he said. “They’re not a taxpayer, and I guess that’s the basic issue.”