In re Opinion of the Justices
Citation | 148 N.E. 889,250 Mass. 591 |
Parties | Opinion of the JUSTICES. |
Decision Date | 31 January 1925 |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
Answers to question propounded to the Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court by resolution of the House of Representatives.
The following order was passed by the House of Representatives on May 9, 1924, and was transmitted to the Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court on May 14, 1924.
Whereas, there is pending before the General Court a bill entitled ‘An act to provide an excise on the use of the ways by motor vehicles.’ being House Document No. 1520, a copy of which is herewith submitted; and
Whereas, doubt exists as to the constitutionality of the proposed measure if enacted into law; therefore be it Ordered, that the House of Representatives require the opinions of the honorable the Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court upon the following important questions of law, such opinions to be filed with the clerk of the House of Representatives at the convenience of the honorable Justices:
1. May the General Court, under the provisions of the Constitution empowering it to impose and levy reasonable duties and excises, or under any other provision of the Constitution, impose and levy an excise upon the use of public ways by motor vehicles, measured in part by the value of such motor vehicles, and subject to a deduction on account of the value locally assessed on such motor vehicles?
The proposed legislation, House Document No. 1520, was entitled ‘An act to provide an excise on the use of the public ways by motor vehicles' and contained the following provisions:
Section 1. The General Laws are hereby amended by inserting after chapter fifty-nine, under the title ‘Excise Tax on Motor Vehicles for Use of the Public Ways,’ the following new chapter:
‘Excise Tax on Motor Vehicles for Use of the Public Ways.
‘Section 1. Every inhabitant of this commonwealth, including every partnership and every corporation either domestic or foreign, having a usual place of business therein, owning a motor vehicle or motor vehicles, shall, subject to the provisions of section five, pay annually with respect to each calendar year for the privilege of operating each such motor vehicle upon the public ways an excise as follows: A sum equal to such number of mills per dollar of the maker's current list price as of January first of the year of the excise if available or the maker's list price for the year of manufacture, in either case as determined by the commissioner of corporations and taxation, less the deduction therefrom hereinafter provided, as is set forth in the appended rate schedule, provided, nevertheless that a ‘dealer’ as defined in section one of chapter ninety, shall not be required to obtain the permit hereinafter provided for registration of nor pay excise for the privilege of operating such motor vehicles as are owned solely for purposes of demonstration and sale and which constitute stock in trade.
‘Succeeding the year of manufacture there shall be deducted from the list price for the first year twenty-five per cent. thereof, for the second year fifty per cent., for the third year seventy-five per cent., and for the fourth and ensuing years ninety per cent.
‘Rate Schedule.
‘Vehicles of less than thirty horse-power twenty mills per dollar.
‘Vehicles of thirty or more horse-power twenty-five mills per dollar.
Section 2. This act shall become effective with respect to the use of motor vehicles during the calendar year of nineteen hundred and twenty-five and thereafter.
On January 12, 1925, the Justices returned the following answer:
To the Honorable the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts:
The Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court respectfully submit this answer to the question set forth in the order of May 9, 1924, and transmitted on May 14, 1924. That question is in these words:
‘May the General Court, under the provisions of the Constitution empowering it to impose and levy reasonable duties and excises, or under any other provision of the Constitution, impose and levy an excise upon the use of public ways by motor vehicles, measured in part by the value of such motor vehicles, and subject to a deduction on account of the value locally assessed on such motor vehicles?’
Our opinion is required with reference to a proposed statute, copy of which accompanies the order. It is entitled, ‘An act to provide an excise on the use of the public ways by motor vehicles.’ It is provided by section 1 that every inhabitant of the commonwealth shall pay annually for each calendar year with respect to each motor vehicle owned by him, twenty mills if less than thirty horse-power, and twenty-five mills, if over thirty horse-power, on each dollar of its value as ascertained from the maker's current price list, with specified deductions therefrom according to the age of the motor vehicle and with deduction also of its valuation made for purposes of local taxation, the minimum excise in any event to be not less than two dollars. The sum thus to be paid is termed an excise ‘for the privilege of operating each such motor-vehicle upon the public ways.’ Provision is made in other sections of the proposed statute for the issuance of a permit as prerequisite to the registration of such motor vehicle, for the enforcement of the terms of the statute by local officers of each city and town, and for the disposition of moneys collected under the act. Its provisions need not be further described.
The manifest design to be accomplished by the proposed act is the collection of a tax for the use of the highways by motor vehicles. There is no constitutional mandate which requires the commonwealth or any of its territorial subdivisions to establish and maintain highways for public travel. The whole subject of laying out, constructing...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Caplan
......But subsequently, when that fee had been greatly increased and graduated according to the horse power of the vehicle's motor, it was the opinion of the justices of that court that the so-called fee was an excise tax. Opinion of the Justices, 250 Mass. 591, 148 N. E. 889, 894. This accords with ......
-
Weekes v. City of Oakland
....... Civ. 37873. . Court of Appeal, First District, Division 1, California. . Dec. 17, 1976. . For Opinion on Hearing, see 146 Cal.Rptr. 558, 579 P.2d 449. . Page 860 . Berkley, Vaughns, Rhodes & Sherrod by Thomas L.Berkley, Gene Rhodes, ...Co., 74 Cal. 113, 15 P. 380 . . . this court, in discussing the character of a tax, had recourse to this factor. In the Opinion of the Justices, supra, [250 Mass. 591, 148 N.E. 889], the Massachusetts court, in advising the legislature of that state as to the nature of a proposed taxing ......
-
Walker v. Bedford
......13380. Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc. October 18, 1933 . . Rehearing. Denied Nov. 1, 1933. . . Dissenting. Opinion on Rehearing Nov. 13,. . . Error. to District Court, City and County of Denver; Robert W. Steele, Judge. . . Action. ... value does not make the act a property tax as distinguished. from an excise tax. Opinion of the Justices, 250 Mass, 591,. 148 N.E. 889; Storaasli v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 57,. 51 S.Ct. 354, 75 L.Ed. 839. In Cooley on Taxation (4th Ed.). p. 3382, it is ......
-
Solberg v. Davenport
......State v. Becker, 288 Mo. 607, 233 S. W. 54;Saviers v. Smith, 101 Ohio St. 132, 128 N. E. 269;State v. Caplan, 100 Vt. 140, 135 A. 705;Opinion of the Justices, 250 Mass. 591, 148 N. E. 889, at page 894;Fisher Bros. Co. v. Brown, 111 Ohio St. 602, 146 N. E. 100, 106;Vernor v. Secretary of ......