Northern Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Conway, RENT-A-CA

Decision Date15 June 1983
Docket NumberNo. 82-160,RENT-A-CA,INC,82-160
Citation143 Vt. 220,464 A.2d 750
CourtVermont Supreme Court
PartiesNORTHERNv. William CONWAY, Commissioner.

Paradis & Coombs, Essex Junction, for plaintiff-appellant.

John J. Easton, Jr., Atty. Gen., and Thomas R. Viall, Asst. Atty. Gen., Montpelier, for defendant-appellee.

Before BILLINGS, C.J., and HILL, UNDERWOOD and GIBSON, JJ., and LARROW, J. (Ret.), Specially Assigned.

GIBSON, Justice.

Northern Rent-A-Car, Inc. [Northern] owns and operates a car rental business at the Burlington International Airport. Pursuant to V.R.C.P. 75, it appeals from an adverse determination by the Washington Superior Court, which upheld the Commissioner of Motor Vehicle's assessment of a purchase and use tax under 32 V.S.A. §§ 8901-8915. The tax was allegedly due as a result of a February 1980 transfer to Northern of rental vehicles from a sister corporation in exchange for 100% of Northern's stock. At the time of the transfer, both Northern and its sister corporation were wholly owned by a third party.

In its brief, Northern correctly states the narrow issue now before this Court: "In order for [Northern] to prevail in the instant case, the word 'individual' as stated in 32 V.S.A. § 8911(10) must be interpreted as including corporations." For reasons detailed herein, we agree with both Commissioner Conway and the trial court that an individual is not a corporation, and therefore, we affirm.

None of the relevant facts are in issue; the parties to this appeal have stipulated to the corporate history of Northern. Further, the parties agree that, but for the possible exemption embodied in 32 V.S.A. § 8911(10), Northern would be liable for the purchase and use tax.

Section 8911(10), as then in force, read:

The tax imposed by this chapter shall not apply to:

(10) motor vehicles registered in Vermont by the transferor and transferred between that individual and a business entity controlled by him, if the transfer is exempt under section 351 of the United States Internal Revenue Code in effect July 1, 1966;

The trial court found, and we agree, that qualification for this purchase and use tax exemption requires the satisfaction of four elements: (1) the motor vehicles must be registered to the transferor prior to the transfer; (2) the transferor must be an individual; (3) the transferor must control the transferee business entity; and (4) the transfer must be exempt under I.R.C. § 351 (as codified at 26 U.S.C. § 351).

Directing our attention to element two, Northern argues that although "individual" is undefined in our statutes, the "obvious purpose of this exemption is to relieve taxpayers who have already paid a purchase and use tax, from paying a subsequent tax upon a tax free reorganization of the taxpayer's business." In analyzing this issue of statutory construction, we must keep in mind that the primary objective is to give effect to the intention of the legislature. Wetterau, Inc. v. Department of Taxes, 141 Vt. 324, 327, 449 A.2d 896, 897 (1982). Further, the plain and ordinary meaning of statutory language is presumed to be intended. Id.

The legislature's choice in providing a tax exemption to individuals affords us with little leeway for statutory construction. The term "individual" has a "well understood and common meaning. Words in a statute without definition are to be given their plain and commonly accepted use." Eastern Advertising, Inc. v. Cooley, 126 Vt. 221, 223, 227 A.2d 294, 295 (1967).

Black's Law Dictionary provides this Court with just such a common definition.

As a noun, this term denotes a single person as distinguished from a group or class, and also, very commonly, a private or natural person as distinguished from a partnership, corporation, or association; but it is said that this restrictive signification is not necessarily inherent in the word, and that it may, in proper cases, include artificial persons.

Black's Law Dictionary (5th ed. 1979).

Northern's suggestion that the legislature intended an unusual definition for "indivi...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • State v. Kreth, 86-002
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • 16 Septiembre 1988
    ...A.2d at 1372; "[w]ords in a statute without definition are to be given their ... commonly accepted use." Northern Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Conway, 143 Vt. 220, 222, 464 A.2d 750, 751 (1983). This fabricated prodigy is then sutured together with judicial rhetoric, and brought to life by the galva......
  • State v. Dorn, 83-272
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • 3 Mayo 1985
    ...statutory phrase its plain and ordinary meaning in an effort to achieve the intent of the legislature, Northern Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Conway, 143 Vt. 220, 222, 464 A.2d 750, 751 (1983), it is clear that the word "or" distinguishes two distinct kinds of "claims" and divides two separate and in......
  • Judy Ann's Inc., In re, 82-301
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • 27 Junio 1983
    ...of statutory construction, the primary objective is to give effect to the intention of the legislature. Northern Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Conway, 143 Vt. 220, ----, 464 A.2d 750, 751 (1983) Wetterau, Inc. v. Department of Taxes, 141 Vt. 324, 327, 449 A.2d 896, 897 (1982). In order to determine l......
  • Shetland Properties, Inc. v. Town of Poultney
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • 26 Octubre 1984
    ...that "[w]ords in a statute without definition are to be given their plain and commonly accepted use." Northern Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Conway, 143 Vt. 220, 222, 464 A.2d 750, 751 (1983) (quotingEastern Advertising, Inc. v. Cooley, 126 Vt. 221, 223, 227 A.2d 294, 295 (1967)). "In construing the ......
  • 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