AGO 96-F-004.

• Court: North Dakota

North Dakota Attorney General Opinions 1996. AGO 96-F-004. STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINION 96-F-04Date issued: March 1, 1996Requested by: Sparb Collins, Public Employees Retirement System- QUESTION PRESENTED - Whether the premiums collected by the relevant provider relating to the dental, vision, and long-term care plans established under N.D.C.C. ch. 54-52.1 are exempt from the state premium tax imposed under N.D.C.C. § 26.1-03-17. - ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINION - It is my opinion that N.D.C.C. § 54-52.1-10 exempts the premiums collected by the relevant provider relating to the dental, vision, and long-term care plans established under N.D.C.C. ch. 54-52.1 from the state premium tax imposed under N.D.C.C. § 26.1-03-17. - ANALYSIS - N.D.C.C. § 54-52.1-10 provides that "[a]ll premiums, consideration for annuities, policy fees, and membership fees collected under [N.D.C.C. ch. 54-52.1] are exempt from the tax payable pursuant to section 26.1-03-17." Apart from a technical correction in 1983, this section has remained the same since its enactment in 1971 as part of the new Uniform Group Insurance Program. See 1983 N.D. Sess. Laws ch. 319, § 34; 1971 N.D. Sess. Laws ch. 517, § 10. A similar exemption from the state premium tax for the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) is found in N.D.C.C. § 54-52-09. N.D.C.C. § 26.l-03-17(l) provides that: "the [insurance] commissioner shall collect from every stock and mutual insurance company, nonprofit health service corporation, health maintenance organization, and prepaid legal service organization. . . doing business in this state, a tax on the gross amount of premiums, assessments, membership fees, subscriber fees, policy fees, service fees collected by any third-party administrator provided administrative services to a group that is self-insured for health care benefits, and finance and service charges received in this state during the preceding calendar year. . . . The meaning of a statute must be sought initially from the statutory language. County of Stutsman v. State Historical Society, 371 N.W.2d 321, 325 (N.D. 1985). Words in a statute are to be given their plain, ordinary, and commonly understood meanings. Kim-Go v. J.P. Furlong Enterprises, Inc., 460 N.W.2d 694, 696 (N.D. 1990); N.D.C.C. §§ 1-02-02, 1-02-03. Consideration should be given to the...