Carter v. State Tax Commission
Decision Date | 04 December 1939 |
Docket Number | 6009 |
Citation | 96 P.2d 727,98 Utah 96 |
Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Parties | CARTER 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.
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:
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:
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-
Malan v. Lewis
...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
...(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.
...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
...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......