Could Connecticut’s tax review committee waive a penalty the tax commissioner refused to waive?

Plain-English summary

In July 1994, Connecticut’s AG said the tax review committee could not grant a penalty waiver that the Commissioner of Revenue Services had refused. The statute directed the committee to “approve” waivers above a specified amount when the commissioner was authorized to waive the penalty. The AG read approval as confirmation of another official’s act, not an independent power to make the initial waiver decision.

The distinction mattered because several tax statutes assigned the waiver choice to the commissioner, subject to the committee’s approval for larger waivers. On the law then in force, a taxpayer’s failed waiver request could not become a waiver through committee action alone. The opinion decided the committee’s statutory authority, not whether a particular taxpayer had shown reasonable cause for relief.

Taxpayers at the time

The committee’s role began only after the commissioner chose to waive a penalty. The opinion did not give it power to reverse his refusal.

Revenue and committee officials at the time

The AG separated the commissioner’s waiver authority from the committee’s approval function for qualifying waivers.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1994. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Could the tax review committee override the commissioner’s refusal to waive a penalty?
A: No. The AG said the statute allowed the committee to approve a waiver, not to originate one.

Q: Did a penalty above the statutory amount automatically go to the committee for a fresh decision?
A: No. The opinion said committee approval applied to waivers the commissioner had decided to grant.

Q: Who made the initial waiver decision?
A: The commissioner did under the cited tax statutes; the committee’s role was to approve or ratify larger waivers.

Background and statutory framework

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-3a created the committee and described its approval role. The AG contrasted that language with statutes such as Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-229(c), which directly authorized the commissioner to waive certain penalties.

Citations and references

Statutes: Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-3a; Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-229(c).

Source

• Landing page: https://portal.ct.gov/AG/Opinions
• Opinion page: https://portal.ct.gov/ag/opinions/1994-formal-opinions/hon-donald-f-miller-commissioner-of-revenue-services-1994019-formal-opinion-attorney-general-of-conn

Original opinion text

Hon. Donald F. Miller, Commissioner of Revenue Services, 1994-019 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut

Attorney General's Opinion

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal

July 29, 1994

Hon. Donald F. Miller

Commissioner of Revenue Services

92 Farmington Avenue

Hartford, CT 06105

Dear Commissioner Miller:

This is in response to your letter dated January 31, 1994, in which you request a formal opinion of the Attorney General concerning an issue relating to the jurisdiction of the tax review committee (hereinafter "the committee") under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-3a.

You state as follows:

The committee is "to approve any waiver of penalty which the commissioner of revenue services . . . is authorized to waive in accordance with this title which is in excess of one hundred dollars." Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-3a(a).
Please advise me whether the tax review committee has statutory authority to consider and to waive any penalty in excess of one hundred dollars that the Commissioner of Revenue Services has determined not to waive.

In answer to your question, it is our opinion that the tax review committee does not have statutory authority to consider and to waive any penalty which "the Commissioner of Revenue Services has determined not to waive."

Our conclusion is based upon the plain language of the statute. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-3a in pertinent part states as follows:

Sec. 12-3a. Tax review committee established. Waiver of penalties; report; appeals. (a) There is created a tax review committee which shall consist of the state comptroller, the secretary of the office of policy and management and the commissioner of revenue services. Said committee shall meet monthly or as often as necessary to approve any waiver of penalty which the commissioner of revenue services, or the executive director of the division of special revenue, is authorized to waive in accordance with this title which is in excess of one hundred dollars. . . .(Emphasis added.)
The statute by its terms only gives the committee the authority to "approve" any waiver of penalty which the Commissioner is authorized to waive. The Commissioner, not the committee, is authorized under various provisions of title 12 of the General Statute to waive penalties, subject to the provisions of section 12-3a.1 The word "approve" is not defined in the statute. Therefore, it must be given its ordinary and commonly expressed meaning. See Conn. Gen. Stat. § 1-1 and Caldor, Inc. v. Heffernan, 183 Conn. 566, 570, 440 A.2d 767 (1981). Black's Law Dictionary (6th Ed. 1990) defines the word "approve" as meaning "to confirm, ratify, sanction, or consent to some act or thing done by another."

The Connecticut Supreme Court has recently stated in Bolt Technology v. Comm. of Revenue Services, 213 Conn. 220, 567 A.2d 371 (1989), quoting State v. Smith, 194 Conn. 213, 479 A.2d 814 (1984), that:

The primary rule of statutory construction is that "[i]f the language of the statute is clear, it is assumed that the words themselves express the intent of the legislature; and thus there is no need to construe the statute. [citations omitted]."
Id. at 229.

The legislature in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-3a clearly and unambiguously gives the committee the authority to approve, sanction, or ratify any waiver of penalties by the Commissioner. It does not give the committee the authority to waive the penalties itself. If the legislature intended that the committee have the authority to waive penalties, it could have easily given the committee that authority in the statute. The fact that it did not do so confirms the fact that the legislature intended that only the Commissioner should have the authority to waive penalties.

In summary, it is our opinion that the Committee does not have the statutory authority to waive any penalty that the Commissioner has determined not to waive. It only has the authority to approve or ratify the waiver of penalties that the Commissioner has decided to waive.

We trust that this answers your question.

Very truly yours,

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL

ATTORNEY GENERAL

Robert L. Klein

Assistant Attorney General

RB/RLK/bjg

Footnote:

1 For instance, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-229(c) provides as follows:

Subject to the provisions of section 12-3a, the commissioner may waive all or part of the penalties provided under this chapter when it is proven to his satisfaction that the failure to pay any tax on time was due to reasonable cause and was not intentional or due to neglect.
Other provisions of the General Statutes which authorize the Commissioner to waive penalties, subject to the provisions of section 12-3a, are as follows:

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-206 Conn. Gen. Stat. §12-439

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-268d Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-509

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-293a Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-575

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-330d Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-590

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-405d Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-655

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-419 Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-667

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-439 Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-735

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-458 Conn. Gen. Stat. § 38a-277