Safe Harbor Water Power Corp. v. Fajt
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
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
- McKesson Corp. v. Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Fla. Dept. of Business RegulationSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Commonwealth v. CaplanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1963
- Commonwealth v. Mellon National Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1948
- Commonwealth v. Philadelphia Electric Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
- PECO Energy Co. v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.