New York Law Review

Maple Fuel Oil Co., Inc. v. Village of Mamroneck, 73 N.Y.2d 825 (1988): Contractual Obligation to Reimburse for Newly Enacted Taxes

Published by

The New York Law Review

in

Maple Fuel Oil Co., Inc. v. Village of Mamaroneck, 73 N.Y.2d 825 (1988)

A party obligated to pay a gross receipts tax cannot compel the other party to a contract to reimburse it for the tax, absent a contractual provision or a claim of impossibility or impracticability of performance.

Summary

Maple Fuel Oil Co. sought reimbursement from the Village of Mamaroneck for gross receipts taxes imposed after the contract was signed. The contract was silent on the issue of taxes. The New York Court of Appeals held that the Village was not obligated to reimburse Maple Fuel. While a supplier could lawfully pass such a tax through to a municipal purchaser, Maple Fuel did not do so in the contract. The court emphasized that Maple Fuel did not claim that performance of the contract was impossible or impractical, only that its costs had increased. Therefore, Maple Fuel, as the party legally obligated to pay the tax, had to bear the increased cost.

Facts

Maple Fuel Oil Co. contracted with the Village of Mamaroneck to sell oil. At the time the contract was executed, no gross receipts tax applied to the transaction. Approximately one month into the contract term, the New York Legislature amended the Tax Law to subject Maple Fuel to a gross receipts tax on the oil sales to the Village. The contract between Maple Fuel and the Village was silent regarding the payment of any such tax.

Procedural History

Maple Fuel Oil Co. brought an action against the Village of Mamaroneck, seeking reimbursement for the gross receipts taxes it paid. The lower court’s decision was appealed to the Appellate Division, which ruled against Maple Fuel. Maple Fuel then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether the Village of Mamaroneck was contractually obligated to reimburse Maple Fuel Oil Co. for gross receipt taxes that Maple Fuel paid to the Tax Commission pursuant to Tax Law §§ 300(c) and 301(a), when the tax was imposed after the contract was executed and the contract was silent regarding such taxes.

Holding

No, because Maple Fuel, as the party legally obligated to pay the gross receipts tax, must bear the burden of its increased cost in the performance of the contract, absent a contractual agreement to the contrary or a claim of impossibility or impracticability.

Court’s Reasoning

The court based its reasoning on the principle that parties are generally bound by the terms of their contracts. The court noted that while Maple Fuel *could* have lawfully passed the gross receipts tax burden to the Village, it did not do so in the contract. The court distinguished this case from situations where performance becomes impossible or impractical due to unforeseen circumstances. Maple Fuel only claimed that its costs of performance had increased due to the change in the tax law, which is insufficient to shift the tax burden to the Village. The court stated, “Plaintiff, being the party legally obligated to pay the gross receipts tax, must bear the burden of its increased cost in the performance of the contract.” The ruling highlights the importance of including tax clauses in contracts to allocate the risk of future tax changes. The court implicitly acknowledged the principle of freedom of contract, emphasizing that the parties could have allocated the risk of new taxes in their agreement but failed to do so. Since the contract was silent on the issue, the default rule applied: the party legally responsible for the tax bears the cost.

More ARTICLES