Carter v. State Tax Commission

Decision Date04 December 1939
Docket Number6009
Citation96 P.2d 727,98 Utah 96
CourtUtah Supreme Court
PartiesCARTER et al. v. STATE TAX COMMISSION et al

Appeal from District Court, Third District, Salt Lake County; P. C Evans, Judge.

Suit by T. S. Carter and another, copartners doing business under the name and style of Interstate Motor Lines, against the State Tax Commission of Utah and others, for return of certain registration fees paid under protest. Defendants' demurrer was sustained, and, from the judgment dismissing the action, the plaintiffs appeal.

JUDGMENT SET ASIDE, and case remanded.

Irvine Skeen, Thurman & Miner, of Salt Lake City, for appellants.

Alfred Klein, of Los Angeles, Cal., and Grant A. Brown, of Salt Lake City, for respondents.

PRATT Justice. MOFFAT, C. J., and LARSON, J., concur. WOLFE, Justice, McDONOUGH, Justice, concurring in part, dissenting in part.

OPINION

PRATT, Justice.

The Interstate Motor Lines, a partnership, paid under protest certain registration fees required by Sections 132 and 133 of Chapter 46, Laws of Utah 1935. They filed complaint for the return of those fees upon the ground, so far as argued in the briefs, that Section 133 was arbitrary and discriminatory as against them, thus violating the 14th amendment to the Constitution of the United States, U.S.C.A., and also Section 24, Article I, of the Constitution of Utah. This constitutional section provides that all laws of a general nature shall have uniform operation.

The Utah State Tax Commission, and its associate defendants, filed a demurrer to the Motor Lines' complaint. The demurrer was sustained and as plaintiff stood upon its complaint, the lower court dismissed the action. The Interstate Motor Lines appealed the case.

At the outset may it be said that we are not concerned with testimony of any kind in this case. If the complaint does not show upon its face an arbitrariness or discrimination in legislation, then the lower court's ruling must be sustained. The complaint does not allege facts peculiar to the appellant and not applicable to others similarly situated; but alleges generally the nature of its business, and that it paid the fees required by the two sections mentioned. Appellant attacks the provisions of Section 133, thus the issue is whether or not those provisions are on their face unconstitutional. That is the issue raised by demurrer.

The two sections of Chapter 46, Laws of Utah 1935, read as follows:

"Article 11 Registration and License Fees

"Section 132. Registration Fees--Based on Weight.

"There shall be paid to the department for the registration of every motor vehicle, trailer and semitrailer, at the time application is made for registration:

"(a) A registration fee of $ 2.50 for the registration of every motorcycle.

"(b) A registration fee of $ 5 for the registration of every motor vehicle not designed, used, or maintained primarily for the transportation of passengers for hire, or for the transportation of property.

"(c) A registration fee for the registration of every motor vehicle, trailer, or semi-trailer, except vehicles propelled by electric power obtained by overhead trolley wires, designed, used or maintained primarily for the transportation of passengers for hire, or for the transportation of property, according to the following schedule:

"1. When such vehicle is equipped wholly with pneumatic tires:

On vehicles the gross weight of which is 5,000 pounds or less

$ 5

On vehicles the gross weight of which is over 5,000 pounds but not

more than 8,000 pounds

$ 15

On vehicles the gross weight of which is over 8,000 pounds but not

more than 11,000 pounds

$ 25

On vehicles the gross weight of which is over 11,000 pounds but

not more than 13,000 pounds

$ 35

On vehicles the gross weight of which is over 13,000 pounds but

not more than 15,000 pounds

$ 50

On vehicles the gross weight of which is over 15,000 pounds but

not more than 20,000 pounds

$ 90

On vehicles the gross weight of which is over 20,000 pounds

$ 125

"2. When such vehicle is not equipped wholly with pneumatic tires:

"For each such vehicle, fees according to the gross weight thereof, amounting to twice the fees set forth in subdivision 1 of this subsection.

"3. Small two wheeled trailers of 1,000 pounds capacity or less shall be exempt from registration.

"Section 133. Registration Fees Based on Licensed Gross Ton Miles.

"In addition to the registration fees imposed upon motor vehicles by section 132 of this act there shall be assessed and collected upon every motor vehicle, trailer or semitrailer, (except vehicles having a city franchise or license, while operating exclusively within the corporate limits of the city granting such franchise or license) designed, used or maintained primarily for the transportation of passengers for hire, or for the transportation of property, a registration fee, based upon the licensed gross ton miles of such vehicle, according to the following schedule:

"(a) For each such vehicle, the gross weight of which is over 13,000 pounds but not more 20,000 pounds, 0.70 mills per licensed gross ton mile.

"(b) For each such vehicle, the gross weight of which is over 20,000 pounds, 0.75 mills per licensed gross ton mile.

"(c) For each such vehicle propelled by motor, engine or other device using fuel other than motor fuel as that term is defined in chapter 12, title 57, Revised Statutes of Utah, 1933, a mileage tax of one and one-half cents per operating mile, in addition to the registration fee provided for in subsections (a) or (b) of this section.

"(d) In addition to the fee based upon the weight of the vehicle, the department shall collect, at the time of registration, a prepayment of the fee based upon the licensed gross ton miles, computed at the rates provided under this section, upon a basis of 4,000 operating miles, such prepayment to be applied in the payment of the registration fees covering the first 4,000 miles of operation of the vehicle after registration. Under regulations to be promulgated by the commission, such prepayment may be transferred from one vehicle to another owned by the same person. It shall be unlawful for any person to operate, or cause to be operated, any vehicle the gross weight of which is in excess of the gross weight for which such vehicle is registered.

"(e) The registration of any motor vehicle, trailer or semitrailer which is prohibited from operating upon the highways of this state by the provisions of sections 36-1-29 or 36-1-31, Revised Statutes of Utah, 1933, as amended by chapters 8 and 9, Laws of Utah, 1933, Second Special Session, shall not be construed as permission or license to operate such motor vehicle, trailer or semitrailer upon the highways of this state."

Appellants contend that there is no reasonable basis, considering the object of the legislation, for selecting 13,000 pounds as a dividing line for the levy of additional fees, nor for that matter, selecting 20,000 pounds as another dividing line. They raise the same objection to the additional fee required by paragraph (c) of section 133 above. Their attack upon this paragraph arises out of the fact that part of the fees they paid under protest were those charged appellants by reason of their use of Diesel fuel in their trucks.

In meeting the argument of appellants upon the requirements of paragraph (c), respondents have suggested that that paragraph may be upheld as an attempt by the Legislature to shift to the shoulders of those operating Diesel fuel vehicles (or more properly speaking, vehicles driven by fuel other than defined in Sec. 57-12-1, R. S. U. 1933) part of the burden borne by the operators of gasoline driven vehicles in the form of the gasoline tax required by Chapter 49, Laws of Utah 1935, which reads:

"Chapter 49

"Motor Fuels

"An Act Amending Section 57-12-5, Revised Statutes of Utah, 1933, Relating to the Tax on Gasoline and Exempting From Taxation Gasoline Sold or Used in Utah Which Is Manufactured or Distilled in Utah From Coals, Oil Shales, or Hydrocarbons of Utah by Low-Temperature Carbonization or Other Processes, for the Purpose of Developing Utah's Natural Resources and Providing New Utah Owned Industries to Relieve Unemployment and to Reduce Amount of Money Leaving State.

"Section 1. Section Amended.

"Section 57-12-5, Revised Statutes of Utah, 1933, is hereby amended to read as follows:

"57-12-5. Tax on Motor Fuels--Exemptions.

"There is hereby levied and imposed an excise tax of four cents per gallon upon the sale or use of all motor fuels sold or used in this state, excepting such motor fuels sold or used in this state as have been manufactured by low-temperature carbonization or distillation within the state of Utah of coals, oil shales, or hydrocarbons of Utah, and excepting also such motor fuels as are or have been brought into this state and sold in original packages as purely interstate commerce sales. If any motor fuels have been purchased outside of this state and brought into this state in original packages or purchased within the state in original packages from a distributor for the use of the consumer, then such tax shall be imposed upon the use of such fuels. It is the purpose and intent of this chapter to impose and levy said tax upon the sale or use of motor fuels as defined in this chapter whether such fuels are used in motor vehicles or for other purposes, and by whomsoever sold or used, including municipalities, counties, school districts and every other arm or branch of the state government."

We shall discuss this case in two parts. The first shall cover the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 133, and the second, the requirements of paragraph (c) of that section. Before doing this, however, there are...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Malan v. Lewis
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • 1 mai 1984
    ...v. Schettler, Utah, 649 P.2d 80 (1982); Allen v. Intermountain Health Care, Inc., Utah, 635 P.2d 30 (1981); Carter v. State Tax Commission, 98 Utah 96, 96 P.2d 727 (1939). See also Redwood Gym v. Salt Lake County Commission, Utah, 624 P.2d 1138 (1981); Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 76 S......
  • Baker v. Matheson
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • 28 décembre 1979
    ...(Emphasis supplied)12 94 Utah 507, 78 P.2d 922-23.13 94 Utah 508, 78 P.2d 923.14 94 Utah 510, 78 P.2d 924.15 Carter v. State Tax Comm., 98 Utah 96, 96 P.2d 727 (1939); State v. J. B. & R. E. Walker, Inc., 100 Utah 523, 116 P.2d 766 (1941); Slater v. Salt Lake City, 115 Utah 476, 206 P.2d 15......
  • National Cable Television Ass'n, Inc. v. F. C. C.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • 16 décembre 1976
    ...Commission does not consider that either (the IOAA) or the NCTA decision establishes mutually exclusive categories of services, i. e., the Commission is not limited to charging fees for services which solely benefit the recipients of those services. Such a view would render (the IOAA) a nul......
  • Gregory v. Shurtleff
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • 19 mars 2013
    ...Appellants' argument that we have already endorsed such a bright-line standard. For instance, Appellants cite Carter v. State Tax Commission, 98 Utah 96, 96 P.2d 727, 733–34 (1939). There, we held that a specific part of a “plan of graduating [motor vehicle registration] fees according to t......
  • 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