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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 36, § 187 (2026)

Penalties

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(REPEALED)
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1977, c. 679, §1 (NEW). PL 1981, c. 364, §§15,16 (AMD). PL 1985, c. 691, §7 (AMD). PL 1991, c. 546, §§2-6 (AMD). PL 1991, c. 873, §4 (RP). PL 1991, c. 873, §8 (AFF).
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 4 cases, 1990–2017 · leading case: John Swenson Granite, Inc. v. State Tax Assessor, 685 A.2d 425 (Me. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
John Swenson Granite, Inc. v. State Tax Assessor, 685 A.2d 425 (Me. 1996). “36 M.R.S.A. §§ 187(2), (3) (1990) {repealed and replaced by 36 M.”
Precast Structures, Inc. v. State Tax Assessor, 568 A.2d 517 (Me. 1990). “See 36 M.R.S.A. § 187 (1978 & Supp.1989). Precast could have halted the accrual of interest and penalties by paying the State Tax Assessor at the outset without voiding its rights to challenge the assessment.”
State Tax Assessor v. Kraft Groods Grp., Inc. (Me. Super. Ct 2017). “§ 5211(17); 36 M.R.S. § 187~B(7). Furthermore, Kraft has identified no prejudice caused to it by trying these issues together.”
Stromberg-Carlson Corp. v. State Tax Assessor (Me. Super. Ct 2000). “1999), with 36 M.R.S.A. § 187(3), (5) (1990). Indeed, the principal changes in the law favor the taxpayer so that, for example, under the statute the Assessor wishes to apply here, the taxpayer can mitigate a penalty by showing there was 1 Indeed, the only notice either the…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 36, § 187(2) — 1 case
John Swenson Granite, Inc. v. State Tax Assessor, 685 A.2d 425 (Me. 1996). “36 M.R.S.A. §§ 187(2), (3) (1990) {repealed and replaced by 36 M.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 36, § 187(3) — 1 case
Stromberg-Carlson Corp. v. State Tax Assessor (Me. Super. Ct 2000). “1999), with 36 M.R.S.A. § 187(3), (5) (1990). Indeed, the principal changes in the law favor the taxpayer so that, for example, under the statute the Assessor wishes to apply here, the taxpayer can mitigate a penalty by showing there was 1 Indeed, the only notice either the…”
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.