Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 36
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 36, § 151 (2026)

Review of decisions of State Tax Assessor

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
1.  Petition for reconsideration.  A person who is subject to an assessment by the State Tax Assessor or entitled by law to receive notice of a determination of the assessor and who is aggrieved as a result of that action may request in writing, within 60 days after receipt of notice of the assessment or the determination, reconsideration by the assessor of the assessment or the determination. If a person receives notice of an assessment or a determination and does not file a petition for reconsideration within the specified time period, a review is not available in Superior Court or before the board regardless of whether the taxpayer subsequently makes payment and requests a refund.  
[PL 2023, c. 360, Pt. B, §1 (AMD).]
2.  Reconsideration by division.  If a petition for reconsideration is filed within the specified time period, the assessor shall reconsider the assessment or the determination as provided in this subsection.  
A. Upon receipt by the assessor, all petitions for reconsideration must be forwarded for review and response to the division in the bureau from which the determination issued.   [PL 2011, c. 694, §3 (RPR).]
B. Within 90 days of receipt of the petition for reconsideration by the responding division, the division shall approve or deny, in whole or in part, the relief requested. Prior to rendering its decision and during the 90 days, the division may attempt to resolve issues with the petitioner through informal discussion and settlement negotiations with the objective of narrowing the issues for an appeals conference or court review, and may concede or settle individual issues based on the facts and the law, including the hazards of litigation. By mutual consent of the division and the petitioner, the 90 days may be extended for good cause, such as to allow further factual investigation or litigation of an issue by that or another taxpayer pending in court.   [PL 2011, c. 694, §3 (RPR).]
C. If the matter between the division and the petitioner is not resolved within the 90-day period, and any extension thereof, the petitioner may consider the petition for reconsideration denied. The petitioner may not consider the petition for reconsideration denied after either the reconsidered decision has been received by the petitioner or the expiration of 9 years following the filing of the petition for reconsideration, whichever occurs first. A petition for reconsideration considered denied pursuant to this paragraph constitutes final agency action. A petitioner elects to consider the petition for reconsideration denied pursuant to this paragraph by:  
(1) For a small claim request, filing a petition for review in Superior Court. For purposes of this subparagraph, "small claim request" has the same meaning as in paragraph E; or  
(2) For all other requests:  
(a) Filing a statement of appeal with the board when the amount of tax or refund request in controversy is $500,000 or less; or  
(b) Filing a petition for review in Superior Court.   [PL 2023, c. 412, Pt. M, §1 (AMD).]
D. A reconsideration by the division is not an adjudicatory proceeding within the meaning of that term in the Maine Administrative Procedure Act.   [PL 2011, c. 694, §3 (RPR).]
E. A reconsidered decision rendered on any request other than a small claim request constitutes the assessor's final determination, subject to review either by the board or directly by the Superior Court, except that the board may review a reconsidered decision rendered on any request other than a small claim request if the amount of tax or refund request in controversy is $500,000 or less. A reconsidered decision rendered on a small claim request constitutes the assessor's final determination and final agency action and is subject to de novo review by the Superior Court. For purposes of this paragraph, "small claim request" means a petition for reconsideration when the amount of tax or refund request in controversy is less than $1,000.   [PL 2023, c. 412, Pt. M, §2 (AMD).]
F. A person who wishes to appeal a reconsidered decision under this section:  
(1) To the board must file a written statement of appeal with the board within 60 days after receipt of the reconsidered decision; or  
(2) Directly to the Superior Court must file a petition for review in the Superior Court within 60 days after receipt of the reconsidered decision.  
If a person does not file a request for review with the board or the Superior Court within the time period specified in this paragraph, the reconsidered decision becomes final and no further review is available.   [PL 2011, c. 694, §3 (NEW).]
G. Upon receipt of a statement of appeal or petition for review filed by a person pursuant to paragraph F, the board or Superior Court shall conduct a de novo hearing and make a de novo determination of the merits of the case. The board or Superior Court shall enter those orders and decrees as the case may require. The burden of proof is on the person, except as otherwise provided by law.   [PL 2011, c. 694, §3 (NEW).]
[PL 2023, c. 412, Pt. M, §§1, 2 (AMD).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1977, c. 694, §676 (NEW). PL 1979, c. 378, §5 (AMD). PL 1981, c. 364, §9 (AMD). PL 1989, c. 848, §3 (AMD). PL 1989, c. 871, §2 (AMD). PL 1991, c. 824, §B10 (AMD). PL 1991, c. 873, §3 (RPR). PL 1993, c. 395, §2 (RPR). PL 1993, c. 395, §32 (AFF). PL 1997, c. 668, §11 (AMD). PL 1999, c. 414, §7 (AMD). PL 2001, c. 583, §1 (AMD). PL 2003, c. 242, §1 (AMD). PL 2011, c. 380, Pt. J, §5 (AMD). PL 2011, c. 439, §2 (RPR). PL 2011, c. 439, §12 (AFF). PL 2011, c. 694, §3 (RPR). PL 2013, c. 45, §4 (AMD). PL 2023, c. 360, Pt. B, §1 (AMD). PL 2023, c. 412, Pt. M, §§1, 2 (AMD).
The Revisor's Office cannot provide legal advice or interpretation of Maine law to the public.
If you need legal advice, please consult a qualified attorney.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 111 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case: State v. Thompson, 2008 ME 166 (Me. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Thompson, 2008 ME 166 (Me. 2008). · cites it 16× “[5] Although section 174 allows an evidentiary proceeding, based on the "prima facie evidence" language, the proceeding is specifically a method for collection of the already final assessments and does not indicate that the Assessor or the Superior Court, as the case may be,…”
Linnehan Leasing v. State Tax Assessor, 2006 ME 33 (Me. 2006). · cites it 8× “[¶ 11] Linnehan filed for reconsideration pursuant to 36 M.R.S. § 151 (2005), and the Assessor upheld the assessment.”
Blue Yonder, LLC v. State Tax Assessor, 2011 ME 49 (Me. 2011). · cites it 6× “See 36 M.R.S. § 151 (2010). Blue Yonder argues that the use tax should not have been imposed because three use tax exemptions apply, 36 M.”
Brent Leasing Co. v. State Tax Assessor, 2001 ME 90 (Me. 2001). · cites it 4× “Brent Leasing filed a timely petition for reconsideration pursuant to 36 M.R.S.A. § 151 (Supp.2000). The Assessor upheld the assessment and added additional interest.”
James Goggin v. State Tax Assessor, 2018 ME 111 (Me. 2018). · cites it 3× “See 36 M.R.S. § 151(1) (2017). In a written decision dated September 21, 2016, the State Tax Assessor upheld the denial of their claims for refunds.”
Victor Bravo Aviation, LLC v. State Tax Assessor, 2011 ME 50 (Me. 2011). · cites it 8× “Maine Revenue Services asserted that Victor Bravo owed $177,502.”
Enerquin Air, Inc. v. State Tax Assessor, 670 A.2d 926 (Me. 1996). · cites it 5× “) in favor of the State Tax Assessor on Ener-quin’s complaint seeking a review, pursuant to 36 M.R.SA § 151 (Supp.1995), of the Assessor’s denial of its request for reconsideration of the assessment of a use tax imposed for the use of certain materials incorporated into an air…”
E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. State Tax Assessor, 675 A.2d 82 (Me. 1996). · cites it 5× “59 in taxes, interest, and penalties for the calendar years 1985-87 on the ground that Du Pont's foreign subsidiary dividends should have been included in its tax base.”
Stromberg-Carlson Corp. v. State Tax Assessor, 765 A.2d 566 (Me. 2001). · cites it 3× “[¶ 4] The taxpayer sought timely reconsideration of the assessment with the Assessor pursuant to 36 M.R.S.A § 151, claiming exemption on the basis that the Contel sales were for resale pursuant to 36 M.”
Flik Int'l Corp. v. State Tax Assessor, 2002 ME 176 (Me. 2002). · cites it 6× “On reconsideration, pursuant to 36 M.R.S.A. § 151 (Supp.2002), the State Tax Assessor upheld the tax assessments against Flik.”
SST & S, INC. v. State Tax Assessor, 675 A.2d 518 (Me. 1996). · cites it 6× “) in favor of the State Tax Assessor on its complaint seeking judicial review, pursuant to 36 M.R.S.A. § 151 (Supp.1995) and 5 M.R.S.”
State Tax Assessor v. Kraft Foods Grp., Inc., 2020 ME 81 (Me. 2020). · cites it 5× “See 36 M.R.S. § 151(1) (2020). After MRS upheld the First Assessment in full, Kraft appealed to the Board of Tax Appeals.”
Show all 111 citing cases →
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 36, § 151(1) — 8 cases
James Goggin v. State Tax Assessor, 2018 ME 111 (Me. 2018). “See 36 M.R.S. § 151(1) (2017). In a written decision dated September 21, 2016, the State Tax Assessor upheld the denial of their claims for refunds.”
State Tax Assessor v. Kraft Foods Grp., Inc., 2020 ME 81 (Me. 2020). “See 36 M.R.S. § 151(1) (2020). After MRS upheld the First Assessment in full, Kraft appealed to the Board of Tax Appeals.”
Eric v. Warnquist v. State Tax Assessor, 2019 ME 19 (Me. 2019).
Apple Inc. v. State Tax Assessor, 2021 ME 8 (Me. 2021).
Express Scripts Inc. et al., 2023 ME 68 (Me. 2023).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 36, § 151(2) — 2 cases
BCN Telecom, Inc. v. State Tax Assessor, 2016 ME 165 (Me. 2016).
BCN Telecom, Inc. v. Assessor, 151 A.3d 497 (Me. 2016).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 36, § 151(2)(D) — 3 cases
Eric v. Warnquist v. State Tax Assessor, 2019 ME 19 (Me. 2019).
Eric v. Warnquist v. State Tax Assessor, 2019 ME 19 (Me. 2019).
Eric v. Warnquist v. State Tax Assessor, 2019 ME 19 (Me. 2019).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 36, § 151(2)(E) — 3 cases
Somerset Tel. Co. v. State Tax Assessor, 2021 ME 26 (Me. 2021).
BCN Telecom, Inc. v. Assessor, 151 A.3d 497 (Me. 2016).
Express Scripts Inc. et al., 2023 ME 68 (Me. 2023).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 36, § 151(2)(F) — 1 case
State Tax Assessor v. Kraft Foods Grp., Inc., 2020 ME 81 (Me. 2020). “See 36 M.R.S. § 151(1) (2020). After MRS upheld the First Assessment in full, Kraft appealed to the Board of Tax Appeals.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 36, § 151(2)(F)(1) — 4 cases
Peter Beckford v. Town of Clifton, 2014 ME 156 (Me. 2014).
Eric v. Warnquist v. State Tax Assessor, 2019 ME 19 (Me. 2019).
Eric v. Warnquist v. State Tax Assessor, 2019 ME 19 (Me. 2019).
Eric v. Warnquist v. State Tax Assessor, 2019 ME 19 (Me. 2019).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 36, § 151(2)(F)(2) — 5 cases
James Goggin v. State Tax Assessor, 2018 ME 111 (Me. 2018). “See 36 M.R.S. § 151(1) (2017). In a written decision dated September 21, 2016, the State Tax Assessor upheld the denial of their claims for refunds.”
State Tax Assessor v. MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc., 2017 ME 119 (Me. 2017).
State Tax Assessor v. MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc., 164 A.3d 952 (Me. 2017).
State Tax Assessor v. MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc., 164 A.3d 952 (Me. 2017).
State Tax Assessor v. MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc., 164 A.3d 952 (Me. 2017).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 36, § 151(2)(G) — 2 cases
James Goggin v. State Tax Assessor, 2018 ME 111 (Me. 2018). “See 36 M.R.S. § 151(1) (2017). In a written decision dated September 21, 2016, the State Tax Assessor upheld the denial of their claims for refunds.”
Somerset Tel. Co. v. State Tax Assessor, 2021 ME 26 (Me. 2021).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.