Legal Opinion · Dissent

Safe Harbor Water Power Corp. v. Fajt

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided June 21, 2005No. 100 MAP 2003-143 MAP 2003 and 150 MAP 2003-193 MAP 2003Published

1DissentJustice Saylor

I agree with the majority that the existence of an adequate post-deprivation procedure for challenging an asserted tax obligation and obtaining a concomitant remedy will ordinarily satisfy the dictates of the Due Process Clause. Here, however, Appellants raise a substantial question concerning the adequacy of the post-deprivation procedure actually afforded them.

It is undisputed that Appellants’ initial PURTA tax (the “surtax”) is self-assessing: each year, the taxpayer calculates how much it owes under PURTA, submits this calculation to the Department of Revenue (the “Department”), and pays…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. McKesson Corp. v. Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Fla. Dept. of Business RegulationSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
  2. Commonwealth v. CaplanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1963
  3. Commonwealth v. Mellon National Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1948
  4. Commonwealth v. Philadelphia Electric Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
  5. PECO Energy Co. v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2003

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API