Richmond, Fredericksburg and Potomac R. Co. v. State Corp. Com'n

Decision Date27 November 1985
Docket NumberNo. 850153,850153
Citation336 S.E.2d 896,230 Va. 260
PartiesRICHMOND, FREDERICKSBURG AND POTOMAC RAILROAD COMPANY v. STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION, et al. Record
CourtVirginia Supreme Court

Urchie B. Ellis (Susan H. Pierce, Richmond, on briefs), for appellant.

Charles G. Flinn, County Atty., for appellee, Arlington County.

No brief or argument on behalf of appellee, State Corporation Commission.

Present: All the Justices.

PER CURIAM.

Richmond, Fredericksburg and Potomac Railroad Company (RF & P) petitioned the State Corporation Commission (SCC) for correction of an allegedly erroneous 1983 assessment of four parcels of railroad property in Arlington County and for a refund of $150,544.71 in taxes paid to Arlington in 1983 based on the challenged assessments. The parcels involved form a part of the Potomac Yard, a large railroad classification and marshalling area located partly in Arlington County and partly in the City of Alexandria. This is the fourth time an appeal to this Court has arisen from questions concerning the taxation of the Potomac Yard, see Railroad Company v. Commonwealth, 203 Va. 294, 124 S.E.2d 206 (1962); RF & P v. Corporation Commission, 219 Va. 301, 247 S.E.2d 408 (1978); and City of Alexandria v. RF & P, 223 Va. 293, 288 S.E.2d 457 (1982).

RF & P challenged the assessments on a number of grounds, but the SCC held that all except one ground had been litigated and decided adversely to RF & P in the 1978 case and were subject to the bar of estoppel by judgment. The remaining ground raised by RF & P was that the assessments violated the anti-discrimination provisions of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act (the "4R Act") § 306, 49 U.S.C. § 11503 (1976). After considering that contention, the SCC found no discrimination in the assessments.

The basis of RF & P's challenge to the assessments is that RF & P is the owner of easements for railroad purposes over the affected parcels of land, while the underlying fee remains in the United States pursuant to an indenture which settled a complex land dispute in 1938. RF & P has the sole use of the affected land "for the construction maintenance and operation of railroad tracks." If the land is abandoned or put to any other use, the easement will terminate and unencumbered title will vest in the United States. With the exception of the effect of the "4R Act," all questions raised by RF & P in the present case, were raised and decided adversely to RF & P in our prior decisions, particularly RF & P v. Corporation Commission, 219 Va. at 318-20, 247 S.E.2d at 418-19. Upon stare decisis principles too familiar to require elaboration, we will give no further consideration to those arguments.

The "4R Act" provides, in pertinent part:

(b) The following acts unreasonably burden and discriminate against interstate commerce, and a State, subdivision of a State, or authority acting for a State or subdivision of a State may not do any of them:

(1) assess rail transportation property at a value...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac R. Co. v. Forst, 92-1874
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • July 29, 1993
    ...S.E.2d 194 (1990); Richmond, F. & P.R.R. v. Department of Taxation, 762 F.2d 375 (4th Cir.1985); Richmond, F. & P.R.R. v. State Corp. Comm'n, 230 Va. 260, 336 S.E.2d 896 (1985) (RF & P III ); Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac R.R. v. State Corp. Comm'n, 219 Va. 301, 247 S.E.2d 408 (1978) (......
  • Department of Revenue of Ore. v. Acf Industries, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • January 24, 1994
    ...U. S. 1086 (1981). Only the Virginia Supreme Court has reached the contrary conclusion, see Richmond, F. & P. R. Co. v. State Corporation Comm'n, 230 Va. 260, 262, 336 S. E. 2d 896, 897 (1985), and it did so on a basis that I do not understand the Court to accept today—that because ad valor......
  • CSX Transp., Inc. v. Forst, Civ. A. No. 91-CV-488
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Virginia)
    • December 10, 1992
    ...and summation," the method employed by the Commonwealth to reach the assessments challenged here. See Richmond, F. & P.R. Co. v. State Corp. Comm., 230 Va. 260, 336 S.E.2d 896 (1985). Federal law also places certain restrictions on the capacity of localities to tax railroad properties. Sect......
  • County Bd. of Arlington County v. Com. Dept. of Taxation, 891135
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Virginia
    • June 8, 1990
    ...(RF & P I ); RF & P v. Corporation Commission, 219 Va. 301, 247 S.E.2d 408 (1978) (RF & P II ); RF & P R.R. Co. v. State Corp. Comm., 230 Va. 260, 336 S.E.2d 896 (1985) (RF & P III ). In 1983, the SCC appraised Potomac Yard at $80,820,700 by a market value review of nearby comparable proper......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT