Martin Oil Service, Inc. v. Department of Revenue
Decision Date | 30 September 1971 |
Docket Number | No. 43241,43241 |
Citation | 49 Ill.2d 260,273 N.E.2d 823 |
Parties | MARTIN OIL SERVICE, INC., Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellee. |
Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Mark H. Berens, Wm. Bruce Hoff, Jr., Arthur S. Rollin, and William A. Gordon, Chicago (Mayer, Brown & Platt, Chicago, of counsel), for appellant.
William J. Scott, Atty. Gen., Chicago (Francis T. Crowe and Morris S. Bromberg, Chicago, of counsel), for appellee.
Martin Oil Service, Inc., the plaintiff, is an Illinois corporation engaged in the sale, wholesale and retail, of petroleum products. It filed claims for credit for the months of March, April, May, June and July of 1964 for its various sales outlets in the State of Illinois, under the Retailers' Occupation Tax Act, the Municipal Retailers' Occupation Tax Act, and the County Retailers' Occupation Tax Act ( ) for the amount of tax paid under a rule of the Department of Revenue which required sellers of gasoline to include the Federal gasoline tax in the base upon which the retailers' occupation tax is computed. The Department denied the claims, and the plaintiff sought administrative review in the circuit court of Cook County. The court affirmed the denial by the Department of Revenue, and this appeal was brought. We took jurisdiction on direct appeal under our then governing Rule 302(a) Ill.Rev.Stat.1969, c. 110A, § 302(a) because the revenue is involved.
Martin operates two wholesale and 43 retail outlets in Illinois. In 1948, it was licensed by the United States as a 'producer' of gasoline. Under that license it is required to remit to the Federal government a Federal gasoline tax on each gallon of gasoline it sells to a 'non-producer.' (26 U.S.C. sec. 4081.) Thus, this tax becomes due when Martin sells to a consumer through its retail outlets or when it sells at wholesale to a non-producer retailer. During the period involved here, Martin, as a retailer in Illinois, was subject to the retailers' occupation tax on its retail sales in this State.
Prior to February 1, 1962, Martin deducted on its retailers' occupation tax returns an amounts equal to the Federal gasoline tax that it had remitted to the Federal government on the gasoline it had sold at retail. This was permitted under the then existing regulations of the Illinois Department of Revenue. Although this regulation had been in effect since 1935, on January 10, 1962, the Department amended its regulations to prohibit such a deduction from the gross receipts from retail customers, on which receipts the retailers' occupation tax is based.
Martin undertook to persuade the Department to recall its amendment and while this effort was being made, that is, until April, 1964, Martin itself absorbed the increased retailers' occupation tax on all sales made through its retail outlets. At that time Martin began to pass on the burden of the tax to its consumer-customers at some of its stations. The claims here concern sales at stations where the tax was not passed on to the consumer purchasers.
The operative words of the Federal statute are: 'There is hereby imposed on gasoline sole by the producer or importer thereof, or by any producer of gasoline, a tax of 4 cents a gallon.' (26 U.S.C. sec. 4081) A sale from a producer to another licensed producer is exempted from the tax. (26 U.S.C. sec. 4083) It is not disputed that the duty to remit the tax is on the producer.
Martin first contends that the legal incidence of the Federal gasoline tax is on the consumer-purchaser. If the legal incidence is indeed on the consumer-purchaser, the Federal tax is not to be included in 'gross receipts' in the computation of the retailers' occupation tax. Ill.Rev.Stat.1969, ch. 120 Pars. 440, 441; American Oil Co. v. Mahin, Docket 43376, Ill., 273 N.E.2d 818.
This question appeared before this court in 1936, when in People v. Werner, 364 Ill. 594, 5 N.E.2d 238, it was said that the legal incidence of the Federal gasoline tax rested on the producer. Martin, to avoid the force of Werner, argues that the legal incidence of the tax was there stipulated by the parties. It is true that Werner was decided on a stipulation of facts. We cannot find however, any suggestion that the question of the legal incidence of the tax was part of the stipulation. Rather it seems clear that this court's expression that the legal incidence of the tax rests on the producer was based on its analysis of the Federal statute.
As Martin points out at least one jurisdiction has taken a position opposed to Werner. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in Tax Review Board v. Esso Standard Division of Humble Oil and Refining Co., 424 Pa. 355, 227 A.2d 657, cert. denied, 389 U.S. 824, 88 S.Ct. 63, 19 L.Ed. 79 held that the legal incidence of the tax is on the purchaser-consumer. Decisions of two other States are read by Martin as supporting its thesis that the tax incidence is on the purchaser-consumer. It was held in Standard Oil v. State (1937), 283 Mich. 85, 276 N.W. 908, and Standard Oil Co. v. State Tax Commissioner (1941), 71 N.D. 146, 299 N.W. 447, that on sales from producer retailers to consumers the Federal gasoline and State sales taxes were taxes that were to be simultaneously imposed. Those courts concluded from this that the Federal tax should not be included in the 'gross receipts' for the purpose of computing the State tax. Neither case considered the question of on whom the legal incidence of the Federal tax falls. We would observe that other courts have reached the same conclusion this court did in Werner. It was held in Sun Oil Co. v. Gross Income Tax Division, 238 Ind. 111, 149 N.E.2d 115, by the Supreme Court of Indiana and in State v. Thoni Oil Magic Benzol Gas Stations, Inc., 121 Ga.App. 454, 174 S.E.2d 224, aff'd 226 Ga. 883, 178 S.E.2d 173, by the appellate court of Georgia that the legal incidence of the Federal tax rests upon the producer. The Supreme Court of Indiana relied importantly on People v. Werner, in its determination. We consider after reviewing these cases that Werner correctly judged that the incidence rests on the producer. The validity of this view can be illustrated by the consideration that if the tax is not paid by the producer, he is the only one from whom the government may seek to collect the tax. Significantly the statute does not impose any liability on the purchaser-consumer if the gasoline tax is not remitted by the producer. It is irreconcilable to say that the legal incidence of the tax is on the consumer-purchaser and to say that he is not liable for the tax. Referring to our decision in American Oil Co. v. Mahin, No. 43376, 273 N.E.2d 818, where we held that the incidence of the Illinois Motor Fuel Tax is on the consumer, we note that the statute there examined provides that the tax may be recovered from the consumer-purchaser if it has not been collected by the retailer.
It is urged by Martin that certain congressional references to the gasoline tax show it must be considered a tax whose incidence rests on the consumer. Exemplary of these is the President's Message to Congress May 17, 1965, Report of the House Ways and Means Committee on H.B. 8371, 89th Congress, First Session (1965) at 1070--71, in which President Johnson said: 'Reform of the excise tax structure will leave * * * excises on alcoholic beverages, tobacco, gasoline, tires, trucks, air transportation (and a few other user charges and special excises) * * *.' (H.R.Doc.No.173, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. 3 (1965).) We consider the references to the tax as a 'user tax' were not intended to be descriptive of the legal incidence of the gasoline tax. It is not disputed that the ultimate economic burden of the tax rests upon the purchaser-consumer. A practical nontechnical description of the tax as a 'user tax' is explainable, consistently with the legal incidence of the tax being on the producer. The economic burden of the tax has no relevance to the issue before us. Fischman & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 12 Ill.2d 253, 146 N.E.2d 54.
So far as the Federal legislative intendment is concerned, it is relevant to notice that a reference of greater and persuasive significance to the incidence of the tax is found in Senate Report No. 367, a report of the Committee of Finance relative to the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1961. (U.S. Code Congressional and Administrative News, vol. 2, 87th Congress, 1st Session, 1961.) The report, which contains a recommendation by the committee that the gasoline tax be continued at the rate of four cents per gallon, states: 'Under present law the Federal tax on gasoline is imposed on the producer, importer or wholesale distributor of the gasoline and is payable shortly after he makes its sale.'
Another contention of Martin is that because amendments to the gasoline statute provide that certain consumers of gasoline can secure refunds of the gasoline tax paid, it must have been the legislative intent that the consumer-purchaser would bear the legal incidence of the tax. It is pointed out that in Chicago Motor Club v. Kinney, 329 Ill. 120, 160 N.E. 163, the court said that a tax refund to a person who has not directly or indirectly paid the tax would be unconstitutional, and thus, Martin argues, as certain consumers can secure a refund, the incidence of the tax must be on the consumer-purchaser.
We consider that the argument has only superficial validity when measured against the very convincing evidence of a contrary legislative intention, including the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Czajkowski v. State of Ill.
...by the statute. 108 N.E.2d at 438. The converse application of this rule was demonstrated in Martin Oil Service, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 49 Ill.2d 260, 273 N.E.2d 823 (1971). There a gasoline distributor challenged a taxing provision which allegedly discriminated against farmers, tra......
-
Gurley v. Rhoden 8212 1734
...excise tax is upon the statutory 'producer' such as petitioner and not upon his purchaser-consumer. Martin Oil Service, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 49 Ill.2d 260, 273 N.E.2d 823 (1971); People v. Werner, 364 Ill. 594, 5 N.E.2d 238 (1936); Sun Oil Co. v. Gross Income Tax Division, 238 Ind......
-
Illinois Bell Telephone Co. v. Allphin
...by the Department should not serve to preclude collection of the tax. As the court said in Martin Oil Service, Inc. v. Department of Revenue (1971), 49 Ill.2d 260, 269, 273 N.E.2d 823: "It is undeniable that weight should be given a contemporaneous construction placed on an ambiguous statut......
-
Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Community Unit School Dist. No. 200, DuPage County
...if the tax is not paid by the utility, it is the only one from whom the city may seek to collect. (See Martin Oil Ser. Inc. v. Dept. of Revenue, 49 Ill.2d 260, 263, 273 N.E.2d 823 (1971).) 'It is the legal incidence of the tax that controls.' (First Nat. Bk. of Maywood v. Jones, 48 Ill.2d 2......