Area Interstate Trucking, Inc. v. Indiana Dept. of Revenue

• Decision Date: 29 December 1992
• Docket Number: No. 49T10-9105-TA-00022,49T10-9105-TA-00022
• Parties: AREA INTERSTATE TRUCKING, INC., Indiana Material Transfer, Inc., Advance Transportation Company, Bryan Truck Line, Inc., Churchill Truck Lines, Inc., Franks & Son, Inc., Great American Lines, Inc., Kat, Inc., and Mogle Enterprises, Inc., Petitioners, v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE and John R. Gildea, as Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Revenue, Respondents,
• Court: Indiana Tax Court

Page 272

605 N.E.2d 272

AREA INTERSTATE TRUCKING, INC., Indiana Material Transfer,

Inc., Advance Transportation Company, Bryan Truck Line,

Inc., Churchill Truck Lines, Inc., Franks & Son, Inc., Great

American Lines, Inc., Kat, Inc., and Mogle Enterprises, Inc., Petitioners, v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE and John R. Gildea, as

Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Revenue,

Respondents,

No. 49T10-9105-TA-00022.

Tax Court of Indiana.

Dec. 29, 1992.

James H. Hanson, Michael J. Tosick, Scopelitis, Garvin, Light & Hanson, Indianapolis, for petitioners.

Richard A. Huser, Kevin Charles Murray, Locke, Reynolds, Boyd & Weisell, Indianapolis, for respondents.

FISHER, Judge.

The Petitioners, Area Interstate Trucking, Inc., Indiana Material Transfer, Inc., Advance Transportation Company, Bryan Truck Line, Inc., Churchill Truck Lines, Inc., Franks & Son, Inc., Great American Lines, Inc., KAT, Inc., and Mogle Enterprises, Inc., appeal the imposition of the tax and surtax (collectively motor carrier fuel tax) under IND.CODE 6-6-4.1. This matter is before the court on the Petitioners' motions for summary judgment and the Respondents' cross motion for summary judgment. The Petitioners seek injunctive relief pursuant to count one of their petition for injunction and original tax appeal.

FACTS

The parties stipulated the following pertinent facts:

A. Petitioners operate motor vehicle equipment that qualifies as 'commercial motor vehicles' subject to the motor carrier fuel tax, and[ ] because those commercial motor vehicles consume fuel in their operation upon Indiana highways, Petitioners are subject to and pay the motor carrier fuel tax to Respondent, the Indiana Department of Revenue ('Department').

B. The commercial motor vehicles operated by Petitioners operate, in part, along the Indiana toll Road.

C. Petitioners calculate, report, and pay their motor carrier fuel tax liability on a quarterly basis. In so doing, Petitioners are required to calculate the amount of taxable fuel based on the mileage their commercial motor vehicles operate upon Indiana 'highways.'

D. The Department requires Petitioners to include within their calculation of 'highway' miles those miles operated by Petitioners' commercial motor vehicles on the Indiana toll road. Thus, Petitioners have been required to pay motor carrier fuel tax upon fuel consumed on the Indiana toll road and have in fact paid such tax....

Stipulation for Summary Judgment Purposes, Exhibit A.

ISSUES

The parties' cross motions for summary judgment raise the following issues:

I. Whether the Indiana toll road is a "highway" as defined under IND.CODE 6-6-4.1-1(f) for purposes of the motor carrier fuel tax? ¹

II. Whether imposition of the motor carrier fuel tax upon fuel consumed in operating on the Indiana toll road is constitutional? ²

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Summary judgment may be granted if no genuine issue of material fact exists and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Ind.Trial Rule 56(C). "Cross motions for summary judgment do not alter the standard for granting summary judgment." Caylor-Nickel Clinic, P.C. v. Indiana Dep't of State Revenue (1991), Ind.Tax, 569 N.E.2d 765, 766, aff'd, (1992), Ind., 587 N.E.2d 1311. As the parties agree, there are no genuine issues of material fact that prevent the court from deciding whether judgment may be granted as a matter of law.

DISCUSSION & DECISION

I.

Indiana imposes a motor carrier fuel tax "on the consumption of motor fuel by a carrier in its operations on highways in Indiana." IND.CODE 6-6-4.1-4(a); IND.CODE 6-6-4.1-4.5(a). For purposes of the motor carrier fuel tax, the term " '[h]ighway' means the entire width between the boundary lines of every publicly maintained way that is open in any part to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel." IC 6-6-4.1-1(f) (emphasis added). The Petitioners contend they are not subject to the motor carrier fuel tax for fuel consumed in operations on the Indiana toll road because a toll road is not a "highway" as defined in IC 6-6-4.1-1(f).

" 'Statutes which impose or levy taxes may not be extended beyond the clear import of the language of the statute. Such statutes are to be construed strictly against the state and in favor of the taxpayer.' " Area Interstate Trucking, Inc., 574 N.E.2d at 314 (quoting Wechter v. Indiana Dep't of State Revenue (1989), Ind.Tax, 544 N.E.2d 221, 224, aff'd, (1990), Ind., 553 N.E.2d 844). The question, therefore, is whether the clear import of the definition of the term "highway" in IC 6-6-4.1-1(f) includes the Indiana toll road.

Because it is necessary to pay a toll to gain access to the Indiana toll road, the Petitioners assert it is not "open." The Petitioners point to a dictionary definition of the term "open" that supports their construction: "Affording unobstructed entrance and exit.... Affording unobstructed passage.... Accessible to all; unrestricted.... Unhampered by restrictions." Brief in Support of Petitioners' "Highway Definition" Claim at 7 (quoting The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 920 (1975)). Accordingly, the Petitioners contend that a strict construction of the term "open" within the definition of "highway" in IC 6-6-4.1-1(f) requires the exclusion of the Indiana toll road.

Such a narrow reading of the term "open" does not comport with the context of IC 6-6-4.1-1(f) as a whole. The intent of the legislature in drafting a statute cannot be determined from viewing words on a selective basis out of context from the remainder of the statute. In re Estate of Cassner (1975), 163 Ind.App. 588, 592-93, 325 N.E.2d 487, 490. Rather, words in a statute must be construed with reference to other words used therein, and with which they are associated. Indiana Creosoting Co. v. McNutt (1936), 210 Ind. 656, 667, 5 N.E.2d 310, 314. "[I]n interpreting a statute [courts] give the words used their ordinary and common meaning rather than 'overemphasizing a strict literal or selective reading of individual words.' " Area Interstate Trucking, Inc., 574 N.E.2d at 314 (quoting Spaulding v. International Bakers Servs., Inc. (1990), Ind., 550 N.E.2d 307, 309).

Therefore, the court must construe the term "open" in IC 6-6-4.1-1-1(f) in the context of the phrase "open in any part for the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel." This phrase leaves the unmistakable impression that the legislature intended the term "open" to distinguish between public and private roads. "The fact that [people] are required to pay toll[s] for its use does not affect the question in the slightest degree. Turnpikes are public highways, notwithstanding the exaction of toll[s] for passing on them." County Comm'rs v. Chandler (1878), 96 U.S. 205, 208, 24 L.Ed. 625, 626. If the payment of a toll rendered the Indiana toll road not "open in any part to the use of the public," facilities such as state parks, city zoos, and public museums would also be considered not "open in any part to the use of the public" if admission were charged. The Indiana Court of Appeals rejected the proposition that the Indiana toll road is not "open" within the meaning of IC 6-6-4.1-1(f), Area Interstate Trucking, Inc., 574 N.E.2d at 314, and this court follows suit.

The Petitioners further contend that the statutory schemes for the management and funding of Indiana's roads provide evidence that the legislature did not intend for the motor carrier fuel tax to apply to the consumption of fuel used in operating on the Indiana toll road. In ascertaining the legislative intent, " 'statutes relating to the same general subject matter are in pari materia and should be construed together so as to produce a harmonious statutory scheme.' " Herff Jones, Inc. v. State Bd. of Tax Comm'rs (1987), Ind.Tax, 512 N.E.2d 485, 490 (quoting Sanders v. State (1984), Ind., 466 N.E.2d 424, 428).

The parties agree the statutes distributing the revenues from the motor carrier fuel tax do not provide funding for the Indiana toll road. ³ Moreover, the management of the Indiana toll road is separate from other public roads in the state. ⁴ The court, however, finds that subjecting Indiana toll road users to the motor carrier fuel tax does not conflict with the function of the motor carrier fuel tax statutes and therefore is not inharmonious with these statutes. Moreover, though the Indiana toll road is separately managed and funded from other public roads in the state, the imposition of the motor carrier fuel tax on Indiana toll road users will not compromise the statutory scheme for separate management and funding of the Indiana toll road.

In addition, IND.CODE 8-23-7-23 provides that with the approval of the governor and the TFA, INDOT may "determine that any state highway should become a toll road." The Petitioners assert IC 8-23-7-23 indicates that a toll road cannot be a highway. Although IC 8-23-7-23 distinguishes highways from toll roads, the statute does not foreclose the possibility that a toll road can be a highway. All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.

Accordingly, this court, as did the Indiana Court of Appeals in Area Interstate Trucking, Inc., 574 N.E.2d at 314, holds that the Indiana toll road is a "highway" as defined in IC 6-6-4.1-1(f).

II.

The Petitioners contend the imposition of the motor carrier fuel tax on Indiana toll road users violates their due process and equal protection guarantees under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Sec. 23 of the Indiana Constitution. "It is well established that the rights intended to be protected under both constitutional provisions are identical." Haas v. South Bend Community School Corp. (1972), 259 Ind. 515, 526, 289 N.E.2d 495, 501. See also Sidle v. Majors (1976), 264 Ind. 206, 210, 341 N.E.2d 763, 767. Generally, if neither a fundamental right nor a suspect class is involved, to pass equal protection muster statutes must meet a rational basis ⁵...