Alaska Freight Lines, Inc. v. King County
Decision Date | 03 June 1965 |
Docket Number | No. 37221,37221 |
Citation | 402 P.2d 670,66 Wn.2d 360 |
Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Parties | ALASKA FREIGHT LINES, INC., an Alaska Corporation, Respondent, v. KING COUNTY and A. A. Tremper, Appellant. |
Charles O. Carroll, Pros. Atty., James J. Caplinger, William L. Paul, Jr., Deputy Pros. Attys., Seattle, for appellant.
Aiken, St. Louis & Steere, Robert C. St. Louis, Charles E. Siljeg, Seattle, for respondent.
Alaska Freight Lines, Inc., is an Alaskan corporation qualified to do business in this state. It is engaged in interstate land and water carriage of freight by motor truck and ocean going tugs and barges, between Anchorage, Fairbanks, Seattle, and other points along the Pacific Coast. Its articles of incorporation designate Fairbanks, Alaska, as its principal place of business, although the company maintains terminal facilities and offices in Anchorage and Fairbanks, Alaska, and in Seattle, King County, Washington.
The treasurer of King County assessed and levied unapportioned personal property taxes upon the company's ocean going tugs and barges for the years 1958 through 1961 and undertook to enforce collection. The company initiated this suit to restrain such collection, alleging that the vessels involved had not acquired a taxable situs in the state of Washington. The trial court enjoined collection of the tax for the reason alleged. The treasurer of King County appeals.
The sole issue presented upon this appeal is whether the trial court erred in finding and concluding that the tugs and barges did not have a sufficient taxable situs in the state of Washington to support the ad valorem taxes imposed. No theory of apportionment of the tax is urged or argued. Neither are we confronted with any issue arising out of RCW 84.36.080. 1
From the undisputed evidence presented, the trial court entered the following unchallenged findings of fact:
'That all of the said vessels owned by the plaintiff are used in interstate commerce between the State of Washington and the State of Alaska, as well as from other ports along the west coast of the United States to ports in Alaska.' Finding of Fact No. 6.
Finding of Fact No. 7.
'That, although the plaintiff is engaged solely in interstate commerce, being the shipment of freight between Alaska and other states of the United States, it has qualified to do business in the State of Washington and pays various taxes to the State of Washington, as well as the County of King and City of Seattle.' Finding of Fact No. 8.
Finding of Fact No. 9.
Finding of Fact No. 10.
From these findings the trial court determined and concluded that the vessels involved had not acquired a sufficient situs in ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Flight Options Llc v. State
...allowing for “fair apportionment” of tax revenues among the states. Id. at 442, 99 S.Ct. 1813; see Alaska Freight Lines, Inc. v. King County, 66 Wash.2d 360, 363–64, 402 P.2d 670 (1965) (noting that situs requirements for non-oceangoing vessels had “been relaxed to permit ... tax apportionm......
-
City of Houston v. Alamo Barge Lines, Inc.
...Ind. School Dist. v. H. B. Zachry Co., 393 S.W.2d 402 (Amarillo Tex.Civ.App., 1965, writ ref., n.r.e.); Alaska Freight Lines, Inc. v. King County, 66 Wash.2d 360, 402 P.2d 670 (1965); Star-Kist Foods, Inc. v. Byram, 241 Cal.App.2d 313, 50 Cal.Rptr. 381 (1966); Anno. 6 A.L.R.2d, Tax Situs of......
-
Vaessen v. Woods
... ... Western Center On Law & Poverty, Inc., Alan Rader and Marilyn Katz, Los Angeles, and ... (County of Alameda v. Carleson [1971] 5 Cal.3d 730, 739, ... ...
- Yarbrough v. Smith