INTERSTATE TAXATION OF MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION
HIGHWAY USE TAXES
KARL
rL Cu FFORD
TAX: TICN OF MOTOR IZSD TRANS?ORThTICN
I N T~RSTATS
-HIGH'.•I AY USE TAX '!·;s-
I l\TRODU :J'l' I ot~:
The original scope of this paper was a study of several
d iffereht state imposed taxes which have unique application
or ~~se unique problems to commercial motor c a rriers traveling
interstate.
Thes~ · taxes
in~lude
excise taxes, income taxes, and
property tax e s on rolling stock.
r es earch with
d e ro:inished.
hi ~ hway
However, after
~lso,
Having only briefly discusned hie;huay use taxes 1n
d~~ l ded
the
f or many
my
use t a xes, the scope of this study quickly
th e st2.te and loca.l tax courP.e, see
t e xt, I
beginn~ng
c~seP
~ours
prt ~";e
255 of the Hellerstein
to concentrate my full res e arch in this area.
were plentiful,
an~
presented sufficient material
of research.
DSFHJ JT I C~lS:
l"or· the purposes of this paper, the term "interstate
rr:otor r; :.:;.rriers" is defined as those carriers for hire v1ho cJo
tr·ansrortation from one state to another, whether or not they
a lso do
i~trastate ' . transport a tion.
also do
intr ~s tat e
As to tho9e carriers which
transporta tion, only the problems of
stat~
tax.::J.ticm ap plica.ble to their capacity as ,interstate carriers
will be discussed.
:::xcise taxes . are defined as "levies on a n ::: :. ctivity or e vent,
or the exarcire of a specific rl ght.in pro p8rty, or a privilege
J
cranted.~
1 The definition of excise taxes includes highway use
54
2
-L -r.
., A
.!, ,. .fl
\. J
J
.
,~
IJ ~tov
.:..A
.
"'I 0 '01J.:\".. c;'
"T m1.•.
.....,.l.\
-._ J
.I
. .&.
Interstate
~ ishways,
which belong to the public of the sta te.
.
s tute
for hire r eq uires th e use of state
truckin ~
.
for individUal gain is a characteristic which
p ~ op e rty
d ist i n ~ u i shes
The use of
motor carriers from most other interstate
i~ter s t a te
Cl ea rly, a · state h a s the power to re gulate, throus h
taxation or otl-:ervr:l.se , t he use of' stnts O'tmed property.
steph ens on v .
Sinford~
2P7U.s. 251
( 1932)~
11
See
It 1S'I'le ll
es t ab li shed. la.,·.r t ha t the hi ghvrays of the state are public
pr o9erty, that their primary and prefer r ed use is
fo~
private
and that their u se for purposes of gain is special and
~ urposes,
extra ord inary, wh ich,
~ enerally
at least, the legislature may
prohib).t or condition as it sees fit."
Id at 264.
Th e s tephencon case . involved a Texas sta tute requirin g motor
carriers for hire to apply for a permit from the
st~te.
The
contes tant of the tax and pern:i t v-ras not enga s ed in interstc..te
trans~ortation,
and the constitutional probl em s of re gulation
of int e rstate commerce were not raised.
Nonetheless, the case
I
illustrates that absent constjtutional barriers, interstate
:n o tor carriers \-Tould be sub ~ect . to state taxation and reP.:ulat ion.
t
• •
..,
To wbat extent does the United States Con stitution impair
the states sovereisnty over t.axation of intersta te commerce.
·'Jl. ~.:: ar ly
P,
Co;J..g ress of the United State.s could, under Art. I, Section
~lause
3 of the Constitution, enadt le g islation which would
9re em9t -or restrict state taxation of inter~tate motor carriers,
Just as Public Law 86-271, 73 Stat. 55, h a s done in another area
7
_)
0;
interstate
However, CongresA has nbt done
com~erce.
~o.
Th e Interstate Commerce ~cit, 49 U.s. C. e302(b}(1) (Supp. 1972),
0
p :covides;~
N ot hi n~ in this cha~ter, except as provided
s.e ct .'t.o n 325( a) Gl e cli ~ .s \vi th st a te taxation of
R rnploye ~ ' s _ sa l o r1 e ~
of t h is title, shall b e con~ tru~d to a f fe ct t he 90w e re of taxation of the
several State s •. o .
I could find no oth6r act of
~on~res~
whi~h
limits the states
powArs to tax interstate ffiOtor truckers.3
Sven though
Jon g res:-~
under the Commerce
alause~
has chosen not to
exercis~
its povrer
the courts have neverthelesR held that
t he s tates may not lay a tax on the privilege of engaging in
inte rstate
com~erce,
or
i ~ terstute
commerce either by providing a direct commercial
i~pose
a
whlch discriminates against
ta~
ad van tase to local business or by subjecting interstate commerce
to the bur·den of multiple taxation.
Hovr has this judicial
interpretation of the Commerce Clause be ? n applied to -highway
us e taxes imposed by states upon interstate motor carriers?
The first two leading cases on the right of a state to
.
.
tax 1nterstate
~otor
carriers concerned
~otor
vehicle traffic in
g eneral 3 and were nbt aimed specifically at motor transportatlon
for hire.
In Hendrick v.
~ a rylund,
235
u.s.
610 (1915), the state
of Maryland was r e quiring persons operating motor vehicles interstate
to obtain a license or
re~istratlon
ce~tlficate
·.
~
a nd to 9ay a fee therefor.
from
. the state
The Supreme Court, in upholding the
t a x, said "that where a state at · its own expense furnishes
special facilities for the use of those
enga ge ~
in commerce,
l n terstate as well as domes t ic, lt xay exact compenstation
t h erefor.
The
a~ount
of the char s es
3Dd
the method of collection
05
4
pr :i.m :.n· i 1y for dc te r mina tion by the st o te itself; and so long as
th e y ar e reasonabl e on d are fixed a ccording to some uniform,
fa ir· and l)ra..c t:c~l standard, th'3y constitute no burden on
The ·otate had ar3ued the fees we r e
to o compen sate for the use of the
stat~s hi~hways.
A similar
s t :; t uto w<::u> uph ol d i n K.:.tne v .· ?Je,,, .Jers e y, 2-42 U.S. 160 (f916).
'f ,18 i'!e\'-' ,Torsey :::. t o.tute provided t hu.t 8.;. 1 moneys received from
t ho licen se and r e g istration fe es in excess of t he amount
for the maint e na nce
vro1Jld be
:::~r,rlied
t he
o~
~equired
and inspection department
r e~ ul a tion
to the mai ntenance of improved
road~.
first c a se to deal wlth a sta tute applied e specially
~he
co ~) an ies
to motor transportation
Chic
(1 927).
require~
in
was Cl ark v. Poor, 274
~ d ~ ltion
U.s. 554
to t he fe e for the license
all motori sts simil a r to those uphe ld in I'\endrick a nd
----
J~ a ne~
~he
motor
e o:n!,; allies desiring to
tra.ns p ort ~;. ti on
on
8tate's highways to obtai~ a certifi~ ui e fro~ the st a te an d
to pay, at the t ime of the issuance of the
t he reafter, a tax
g r~d ua t 9 d
a c ~ or ding
of vehicles used by the company.
used
o~ era te
..
I
Th~
c er tifi~ate
and annually
to t he number and capaci ty
t ax receipts we re to be
the maintenance and repair of the hi s hways and for the
~or
. .
administration and en forcement of th e laws
~ ov erni n g
their u se .
0lo. rl>:: O)erated exclus.ively inte r 8t ate a motor t ruck line.
u c;hclc' inc.; · the tax) the court lJG ld
·v1ho u:Gtke.
r::h:l.rc:ecl
~J he
~:n
11
common cart'ie rs for hire,
hizhv-;ays th ei r p lac e of ,busin ess, may
extra t a x for such use.
In
p ro ~ erly
be
The court noted: ( 1) "there
ic no Sl..lC;:\"8?-tion the tax discriminates a. 9.:ainst interstate
c omrr1 er c e, ~ 1
(2) " n or is i t
o•o
so l a r e::e as to ob s truct interstate
57
5
c o:cne rce, a n u.:)II
( )-)
11
as ~· ess e d
s ince th e tax 1s
for a proper
9 tLC' ~)os e: and is not ob,,e etions.bl e in arr.ount, the use to v.rh itJh the
or oe8 e dn a.re put i~1 not a :natt :::;r v.rhi0h coneerns the plaintiffs."
Whil e the Ohi o tax uph eld in Clark Wa8 appli e d especially
to motor .carriers for hire, it did not distinguish betwe en carriers
in t e rstate or carrie rs intrastate.
further und
~
m;>osed a tax of one
~onnecticut
c~nt
went one step
for each mile of highvray ·
trav e rsed by a ny r.1otor vehic 1 e used in ln ters ta.te commerce "as
an e xcise ta.x on the use of such hi ghvray ·, H U:e pro ce eds of the
tax to bG applied to the maintenance of hi ghways witbln the state.
An other statute
re~uired
com ~-. anle
s engaged in intr.asta te transportation
to pay an excise of 3 ·per cnet of their g rosr receipts (less their
locc.l property taxe s), the proceeds of vrhi:Jh were also devoted
tc rr.a1ntena.nce of high,,rays.
I nt e rstate Busses Corp. v.
'e'le mllea;;e tax 1·.ras
Blod~ett,
un~ e ld
in
276 U.S. 245 (1928).
It
was argued the tax discriminated against interstate commerce.
The court
h e ld that
is not established
discrj~ination
. ~erely
.
by showing the taxes imposed on 1nterstate carriers are differ en t
in measure, method of
assessm ~ nt
or number than those
i r1trastate carr :l .ers.
Dis r~rim i n a tion
dis ~ roportio~ate
on
n e ces sitates a s11owine; that
in actual practibe the aggregate charge of the tax
either falls with
i~posed
co~plained
of
economic wei f;ht on interstate
carr·lers or h a s no reasonable r e l a tlon to tl:v:;- prlvele g e granted. 1+
By the tixe of the Blodge tt decision in 1928~
the Su 9rem e
Court had established th a t: (1) the tax may be not only a license
or
re r~ stration
fe e, but a lso a tax directly upon the interstate
C8.rr·1t:rs high'\·tay operations; (2) the tax may be
dif~erent
in form
6
· ::;1.:,
. , ' .~ Inro rr•. that levied on simil a r
a n et· 'o,J.
intrst a te carriers; ( 3)
to be entitled to relief the
i~terstate
uiths r (a) the tax imp oses a
substantl~lly
carri e r must
prove
greater burd e n
u~on
it than u9on those engagid in intrasta te transpo r t a tion, or (b)
t he
ag ~rs~ate
charge bears no
Feasonabl~ relatio~
to the privilese
s r ante d.
In 1928- c,::J..r.r.e the fi_rst of thr e e Supr-=me Jourt ca.sef' which
caused much confusion.
These cases wer e interpreted by state
courts t o require another test of the v a lidity of hi ghway use
t axe s imposed on interstate carriers.
In Sprout v. South Bend,
277 U.S. 163 (1928), th e court struck down a license fe0 i~posed
u0on interstate motor bus 9ee.
The fee was g raduated,varylng
with th e seating capacity of th e bus.
the subject of the tax was the
h:
~:n. ;o._y
The statute did not state
prfv e le~ e of . usin~
the state's
s, nor did it s t ~:l te the proce e ds v1e re t o be used to
co ns truct or
m ainta ~ n
roads.
!he court
bel~
the fee could not
be re garded as a contribution to the cost of sta te roads.
"A flat
tax, substantial i n amount a nd the same for busses plying the
str e8 ts
contin~ ously
de many interstate
in local service and for 'ousses mal{ing, as
busses~
only a sins le trip daily, could hardly
hav e been d e signed as a measure of the cost or va lue of the uee
·rhen came Int e r s ta te Tr a nsit v. L l ndf':'.e;y, 283 U.s. 12-3 ( 1931),
which reached a n ev An mo r8 sp e cific conclusi on.
This cas e involved
a ·renncs::::.ee tax upon interstat e buss e s alon e .
The me a sure of the
tax was a flat rat e 3 raduated according to the
seatin ~
capacity
7
of uu s se ;:1.
.
~roc e~ dR
.. ·'...
·'
b 0...., -·1!1
.... :>
The
ot a.tut e cl:'L d not spec:i.flc;ally alloce:1.te the
t ~:..x
f or 'n 1s~way
. )
i ·1'.•. "; 0°
u '.:>
, .. r~
.J
.. .
to
pur ~ oses,
no'n ,....,
v ,<=>
...,.. J1,..'"'+A
. \."") t..:"' . u ......,
,\.1
••
•
:--
• .
.
:.w d could be u :)h e ld only
w.:;. s lev
11
. , 1. t 1n
. ~ 1c
. a t e t'oe t· ax was
nor d.la
~
·f'or
.- ·
.
.
u ~Jon
an afflrrnat :i.v e
h:d as compens a tion for· use of the
~~hO'tl i n .c~
-'~i. o_;hHayG.
th <-.l t
it
Such
rd [.>:ht usual1y b P. ind.ics.ted elth8!."'by tho nature of the impositlon,
sue~
as that of a mileag e tax, or by an
th e proce e ds to hi r::·,h rT a y purposes."
of
de~;end
t~e
higb 1tla~r
use,
mil. ea:.~ e
t~aveled,
hi ~ hways.
of
siz·e · or •,reisht
vahicle, or the number of passengers actually
the sta tes
be
upon
allo~ation
The amount of the tax did
1
.. ot
expr e s ~
carri~d
on
The co urt concluded that the tax could not
su.sta:'Lned as a h i -- '- ·-.r :;..y tax, but \•T J.s a tax exa.cter:] for tho
'l'lv.-; third case v;e.s Eicklin v.
Goney, 290 U.S. 169 (1933·).
This caee involve d a South Ca rolina tax levied against interstate
ca rri e rs; the measure o f the tax beins carryin g
the above two cases.
th~;t
the
proceed~~
to be us0d for
as in
The court upheld the tax, distinguishin s
lt from Interstate Transit.
'lfO.P.
capa~ity,
Th e
dintir1 3 uis~in z
v:ere recu .i red by tb e South
~aintainin~
characterintic
'j~. :r·olina
sto.tute
the puhlic hi ghways.
'rhese three c<1.ses ,.,r;;:'re in terp:cet_::d to L.r; ean that the proceeds
from any hi ;3huay use ta.x .l.rr.posed by a s ts. te upon interstate
commerce must b e s?ecifically ap propriated to highway purposes.
For an example of a case r e aching thls r e sult see State ex rel
~\tlant1.c
Gr e yhound ·r1 rr1.c:s v. 'f'. ~ ize11, 128 Fla. 125, 174 So. 216 ( 1937).
6
re ~dins
Even without subseQuent c a ses, a close
t : !r~,e
c:l~'es
reveals tll u t th e Su pr en.:•;
t Lo.t a stat e tax
us~
0 ~1
i.'n terstate carriers, _to
tax, mu st be identifiable a s a
:r'ust be cst.ublish e d by at l (:; a.ot one
tn~
statute
u nl n~
sta tln~
th0 s t a t e s
~ourt vT8.s
hi~h way
or
b~
u~ e
(2) th e
r· ~a l ly
holdin:>;
v o.l :iJJ o.s a
hi ,~h\'1 ::-,y
t ax .
id e ~ity
Su ch
thr ee '•!:J.ys: ( 1) the s t ate
th e s ubject of the tax is
hj~hways ;
of the above
~r oce e ds
th ~
pr ivile~e
of
o f t he t ax be appro priated
t 0 h l s hwny )Ur ~ os e s; or ( 3) th e me a sure o f the tax be such t ha t
i t indicates t hG l ev y is for ths use of th e sta tes
I~
I nte rstat e
Susr~s
and in I n terstate Transit al l
hl~hways.
thr ee of these
,,re re le.cki~e; . 5
The d e cis i ons in
i n DJ.x ie Ohi o
~ orf
Sx~r e se
~n.
v.
Bin~am on,
29 8 U.S. 407 (1936)
v. St a t e Re v enue
~omx'n,
306
(1939 , set a t rest any further disDute on th ls issue.
d e cls~ons
U.s.
and
72
Theie
hold th a t it is n ot e s sen t i al to the validity of the
tax, as touching i nt ers t a te commerce, th a t its prbce9ds be actually
app ropriated to
hi~hway
About this same
have developed.
pur p os e s.
ti ~e
another area of confusion seems to
Earlier c a ses had h e ld taxes valid as reasonable
compens a tion tc the state for the use
of the states hi g hways.
295 U.s. 285 (1935) where the court held no unc e rta in
lan.r;ua;:';e. th G. t the validj_ty of a bi .r.r,l'nra y
upon actual us e of the
stat~s hi ~hw ays,
u s ~~
t ax do e s not d e p en d
b ut u pon the value of the
6 1.
9
The fe e is not for the milea ~ ~ cov e red by a
ve:1i cl e •••• The fee is forth !:; _8rivile.r-re of
a us -:: rtf3 o:~ te r:n i'-' 8 a s th·3 G::n'rier Hill ths.t
lt shall be •••• Cne who rec ~ ives u p ri v i l e~ 9
vr) t h.ou t l ~ · nits is !10t \·rron .~:.e d by h.i s 01.·rn
ref usal to enj oy it as fre e ly as he may.
The court u;Jheld
a Georg ia tax placed
-J. :->0~1
c.::n·r:iers for
~n'ivate
hi r e o f a flat rate of $35 for an ioitinl c er tific a te and
~25 ai1l1l~a1ly
maintenance
thereafter.
Tl:.e se fL.mde v.rere to be used for the
r epai r of th e hi s hways of the state.
a~d
such a holdin 3 was in conflict with In terst ate
whjch
supr a ~
be d r:; pei·Jcl::mt
-.;oor u
./
0
" )...) •
to h a ve said the amount o f the
se ~m ed
U') Oll
th e court uph e ld a blf5h1:lay
.,
t a x measurl3c1
us ~~
by an annual flat r a te for each vehicle in a c er t a in
An
exclusiv~ly
stateH
interstate carri e r
hi~hways
wei ~ ht
~ ..J
ran •~..J e .
hi s actual use of the
ar ~ ued
not justify the tax.
did
should
t~x
a ·n o1.mt of a ctua l use .
tr1e
r7.....,
( 1(I../ ?Q
)
c_
,..· ;
Tra n Rit~
The court h e l.d that
"figures sho,·rinc; the extent of appell?.nt' s us e of the state's roads
ta~en
may not be
as an indic a tion of the value of th e
9 rivele ~ e
where it d oes not a 2pear wheth er the
9rivil~ ~e
was full availed
of."
Th is conflict wa s further
rovert::~cl
to
.J~
ts
7
..!,
0 't Pr·ct.-;tr, · •ry>ronc l' t
.J
~.,
} .r_~_.'-1.' 'l ~
::~.y u ~. ·~
·~-
d O'.·rn
<').
U• S•
·17 6
_,
_
( 19 40 ) •
, _
•J
I_)
+ ·' ' X
._,_
1,.:;
(.""l
_; n
•
~
wten the Su9reme Court
ag~ rivated
..:,.J.. -. ..
'-~
'
ou n i-..,
.:::.._.~ J
1
.., .) ,-·l-' r·oac,1..1
...
0.. .!,
·> 11..::1
\.J..
\. '-.o.
·,_ :_c '"'.J ·" '.r y. ol v ·• r!· l. x '1 e ,., r"" y'11 O"nd
-
Arkansas l e v ied
..
~s
J
..
•,]·
·-- .
,...
r
......
s+ruc 1 1._.,
in""
\ J
.,1
c:!" '
'
l~
309
a highway use t ax a charge
of 6 1/2 ce n ts on eaeh (';a1lon (above 20) of p·as
,_
the state.
The court· bri e fly re c og nized that the tax imposed
v62
10
' · ' ._., '"
" 1..- • ' ·
.
l\
0. () ~
LI
t~ n
•J
·~
n r·"v 1 l e~p
>' l
;~~
;, str-i ti ns dm,;n
t.h~
th e s t a t e
0~
~
~l~h way s .
t:.J. x, th e Su-pr e me Gourt, c:_aotin c; the Glrcuit
While we c a n underst a nd hcrq th e use of state
ll ~ < :hv;:.l..YS by u c·:.rrier can be rou.cc.hly L:' le anur e cl
i)y th e a.:nount of r~a soJ. in e VJhj c h t~;a t c :::.rr· iG r
u s e ~'· to n;ov(: .' Lts ve ~!icl f.-: s ov c:~r tLc b.L z hvJ s.ys,
1·-Je ar e UD(J.bl e to r; O'!r preb -~ nd hOV! the us e of the
r1 i u;_ hv.' a. ys of o ne s tat.r;; C <lD a~"J ;-; r o ~;riately be
E!~;:::. sur e d by th e a:n ount of r; asoline c3rr5.e d in
t~ e fu e l t ~n k o f a n int erst a t e c ~ rrler for us e
uporJ t~ e hi~)!Vla ys of ;J.notlle r stat e .
probl e m centered on ';!1:"1 e th e r the me a sure or formu1a.
oft. ~H-::-
t :::tx, asnJ.rr:lns t!'"!.n.t it Ha s not a ,11e r·e l icense fe e , must
so ::ie~lO';,r
r.;-:: l a t e to the c a rrj_ers a.ctua.l use of tLe r oa d s .
Only two subs e qu e nt Supreme Court c a s e s are concerned directly
'ltit1".
hi :~·hvray
s e ttlin~
us:: tax e s.
Tb e se
C D. f' 8 s,
e.1thoun·: l not
corn ~;leteJ.y
the isfue, indicate that it isn't the ffieasure or
for muJ.a of a hithw a y use tax that is deter~inative.
Rather it
is whether the a ggre s ats amount of each state's hi ghway use ta.x
is
r e a s o~a~le
in r e lation to the
nrivile ~ e
••
~. J
~ ranted.
•
,_J
In .'\e r·o Va vf -~ 0 1:rer Tra.n sit ::::o. v. Ra .l.lro a d 'jom rn 1 n, 332 U.S.
495 (1947), th e
St~t e of Vontana h ~ d impose d a quart e rly fee of
1 1/2 pe rc e~ t of i n t e rstat e an d intrastate ~oto r carriers' gross
oper a tln ~
rev9nue , with a . minj_rr.um of ~~~15 per ve rricle.
"Gross
OiJ er·a t :i.n ::: rev e nue 11 v.ras interpreted by the s t o t:e su ) r e :ne court to
i:J81. ude onl. y revenue deriv e d from orJer;-;. tions ,,: ith :i.n
~-: ontana.
3oth to.):es ,_,.rere exprassJ.y levied
u
of t he hi [:;;l1\·t a ys of thi c st a t e .;,
Vlitl1out even dlscus !"·in3 the
The
in consld e rg.tion of the use
mea sur e of th e se taxes, the Supreme Gourt concludes:
. 63
11
It is of no consequ ence t h a t the s t ate
h a s s e en fit to l uy two exac t ions, subs tantially
id en tlc a l ®j.nc e appe llant wus withjn the $15
c~ i ~ l .Lrr.urn on the ~ 1:ross re ,;e nu ~~ ta~ , re.t:1 e r U)arJ
con·.b:l.n e d. tl'l e c: into on e , or that appel~ an t p<-.J.y s oth e r
t <-J.X e s w hi_ :~h i n f ac t c:t:ce devoted to hi r:hwn.y :.:a~. nten­
an c e . For th e state does not exceed its co~stitutlonal
p ow e r s by im ) osin g more than on e form of tax.
And, as we hav e sa id, th e a~grcsa te ~mount of both
taxes co ~ b 1n e d is l ess t tan that of t a x~s h~ retofor e
sus tain ed . In view of t h s e s ~acts there is not
e ven s9 ~ blanc o of substance to ~pp e llant 's contentj_on th a t the tax e s are exc2ssive.
Asain in Go oitul
Gr ~ vhou c d ~ines
v. 3rlce, 339
(1 950 ), a similar conclusion wa s reached.
interstate motor carriers to
r e~ ister
are operat e d within the sta t e .
~aryland
U.s.
542
required all
its veh icles before they
As a pre-requisite to registration)
th e Rtate im p osed a tax of 2 psr cent of the fair market value
of each motor
v eh i ~ le
re g istered.
e a.d-:. vehicle only once$
ro c1d
puriJOses.
The tax was to be imposed on
'r.he proceeds of the tax vfere devoted tG
The follo\·tin.e; quote, as lengthy
beG t ex9re ss es the
~o~clu si ons
~~. s
it may be,
of this case and the current
statue of hlshway use taxes:
neither :i.n t:-:te JV:"aryland 80urts nor herr-; ha.ve
appellants s pecifically chirged that the a~ount
of taxes imposed on carriers will always be in
exness of fa~r com9enpat 5on. Their challen s e ~s
18veled e.~ainst th e formu1a, not the amount.
The taxes upheld have tak e n many forms.
Examples are t.9.xes 0ased on ;nj_leage, c has[; is 1tre i e:,h t,
tonna~e-capacity, or horsepower , singly or in
coi:·. bi t'la tion- a list ,,,rrd.ch does not begin to
e xh a ust the inumberable factors bearin g on the
fa irne s s of co~pensation by each cPr r ier to a
~t~te.
The difficulty in 3 e~rin s taxe~ to these
factors was recognized by this court a s early as
Kane v. New Jers~y ••• (1916), where it said that
so _lon s as fe0P. are r(:~s. sonable in amount 11 1 t is
cJ.9arly within the discretion of the State to
determine wh e ther the compenR~tion for the use of
its hishways by automobiles shall be determined by
way of a fe e , pay able annually or semi-annually,
/':,~d
064
i 2
or by a toll based on ~:·:ileac·.e or ot:v:n"..ris~. ' 1 • • •
Thus, unless we are to depart from prior decisions ,
the )·Iar'.Yl' \nd te.x b.'3D~~d on the cost of the 'rehlcleE
should be ~udsed by its result , not the formula ~
and must stand unless prove n to be unr0asonabl6
in amou nt for th e privilc5e ~ ranted •
.• ~ Compl0te fairness would r e quir e ~ ~at a state
tax formuL~ vary 'ili th every factor aJ.~fectlnr;
<:-..~1pro:::•rlate co::~pensc~tlon for road u2e.
These
factors, like t~osc relevant in considering the
c onstitutionality of other state taxes, are so
countless that vre r;mst be content with 11 r·ou:J:h
av . roximation rath e r than r)r e cision. 0 • • • 1·.~e
r1ave re8ozniz (~d tl1;1t su~h burd2ns may be suff.ic).ent
to ~ustify states in ignorin~ even such a key
factor as milease, althou~h ihe re s ult may be a
tax which on its face appears to bear with unequal
wei~ht upon different carri e rs .••• Upon this type
of reasoning re8ts Our general rule that taxes like
th;:~t of I!:aryl.:::.ncl here a.x·e v:~lid unless the affi01.mt
is shown_to be in e~cess of fair cog9ensatlon for
the priv1lese of us1n~ state roads.
:::ctZGI.UfHON:
for the use or privilese of
us1~~
the
stR . t~ s
hl~hways;
(2) Such taxeE can b e levi e d aG a inst interstat e commerce
alone , excluding intra3tate commerce 3 without being discriminatory
against interstate
com~erce,
pays his fair share
thro~gh
provided the intrastate carrier
other state taxes;
(3) The proceeds of such taxes need not
be actually
(4) Tho measure of these taxes need not relate to each
carrler's use of
t~e
hish~ays;
(5) Such taxes wj.ll be valid unless the aggregat e amount of
the levy is ;::-.roven unreasonable in amount for the privilege of
13
.
' Sl
. t.'. "')
t.~
··· -l(rl..l'•''''ro•
t·h::.
e ,S tntr-.1
;.:... ··· (1
,, 1---·-,t
•·~·.,
. . ;::,~
~.
(6) The courtR have not indicated on what
evld~nca
an
I nt e rstate carrler can proceed to attack such taxes ns unreasonabl e
1:1 ::~mount;
( 7) ·rhe ar;:r,un:ent of ~~rnul ti~)le taxation" has not be':::n
d!sau~sed
sinc e such
by
th~
Supreme Court in
argu~cnt
r~lation
to
appears inapplicable to a
hi ~ hw~y
t~x
privllese of using a particular states highways.
is reasonable in amount for the 9rivilege of
s t :-1.t es higl1\'tays
success~
7
usin~
use taxes,
for the
If the tax
that particular
rr:ulti[)le taxatlon could oot be arc':.ued vr.ith any
-200THOT'.!:3~
i .
J. Hellerstoirl, ~tate and Local Taxationpage 25 (3r·:1 ed. 1969).
The section 302 quote is found in th s
to the Inturstate
_;•
Gom~erce
~ases
~otor
and Materials)
Carriers cub-title
Act.
consress bo2;-:1n the practice of :·: r~nt.ln~~ tLe st :=tto-~s ~e(leral
funds to conotruct particular hl~hways by the 1921 Federal
II1(T'.~vw.y Act.
·rhe ori'p;inal act of 1921 provJ.del!.J as ic
currentl;y prO'..'ldecl. oy-23 U.S.·J. S)01, tbat 11 • • • all hir:hv.'ays
c6nstructed under the pro~isions of this title shall be free
from tolls of <::tll ldmJs." Judicial interpretations have,
in effect, · limited the breath of tolls to a ~h~rse collBcted·
on the road fro~ all vehicles passing.
For cases holdin~
franchise taxe n, fuel tax8 s, l ict~nse or rerr,i etra tion fees,
a.nd :1:ilea;;e taxes ar•; not ''tolls" see .Johnson ·rr;;:.nsfer 'lnd F:r·ei
ght Lines v. '?erry, Lf7 ??d 900 (D.::;.Ga. 1931); San r~er v.
Lukens, 24 F. 2d ~!26 (D. ·J. Idaho 1927) , reversed on other
grounds 26 F2d 855; .Cunni~cham v. Potts, 9 F.2d 469 (D.C.
til a p, h • 1 9 2 5) ; .state e :r.: r e l • H i c e v • CJ. t y Bu s Co • , 1 7 6 T~·a s s •
597, 169 so. 774 (1936); Teche Lines, Inc. v. Board of
Sup'rs of Forest County, 165 Yiss. 594, 14? so. 24 (1932).
Thus, the receipt of Federal Aid vwuld not see::n to l i~ni t
the power of a state to tax interstate carriers for the use
of the hi5h1t:ays.
}1
The court notes that the 8ormecticut st.9tute contains a
provision allowing exclusion of the taxpayer from the states
highways for non~ayment. Althour._;h this !)revision \vas not
held to be an issue, the COIJ.rt states that suc11 provision
is invalid.
I~
This con~lusion is cleQrly expressed by t~e Supreme Court
in Aero Transit Co. v.· 8omm'ns, 332 U.D. 495, 505 (1947).
T•
.J"
6.
'H r.• .<T-0-stice . Frankfurter · in . his d'i ssent st:d.e s:
· ·••• The ·d·erect -lay in the cc.9ric io·Js tax
formula.
In no prior ens~ h~s the court uph2ld
a tax formula bearin~ no reasonable relationship
to the privileBe of road use.
...
••• Reason ~recludes the notion chat a tax for
a privilege may disregard the absence of a
nexus between the priviie~e and tax.