State v. Yellowstone Park Company

Citation57 Wyo. 502,121 P.2d 170
Decision Date20 January 1942
Docket Number2214
PartiesSTATE v. YELLOWSTONE PARK COMPANY
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Wyoming

APPEAL from the District Court, Laramie County; SAM M. THOMPSON Judge.

Action by the State of Wyoming against the Yellowstone Park Company to recover taxes. From an adverse judgment, the plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

For the appellant there was a brief by Ewing T. Kerr, Attorney General; H. I. Bacheller, Deputy Attorney General; and Arthur Kline, Assistant Attorney General, all of Cheyenne, and oral argument by Mr. Kerr.

This is an action to recover a tax on gasoline imported by respondent Yellowstone Park Company into Yellowstone Park and used by respondent in the operation of its vehicles. It involved an interpretation of what is known as the "Hayden-Cartwright Act," an act of Congress approved June 19, 1936. The judgment of the lower court was that the tax should be restricted to sales and not upon gasoline used by respondent. It is the contention of appellant that the Act applies to sales as well as to gasoline used. This interpretation has the support of an opinion by the Attorney General of California dated February 10, 1937, which we have quoted in our brief. Opinions of this character have been recognized by this court. State v Hunt, 53 Wyo. 267; Baldwin, State Treasurer v Roby, 54 Wyo. 339. Our state statute, Chapter 72, Section 2, Laws 1935 includes both sales and use. The Act of Congress provides but one exemption and that is sales of gasoline for the exclusive use of the United States. Exemptions are never to be presumed. Memphis & Charleston R. R. Co. v. Gaines, 97 U.S. 697; 61 C. J. 391; Salisbury v. Lane, 63 P. 383; Trimble v. City of Seattle, 116 P. 647; Providence Bank v. Billings, 4 Pet. 514; Edelman, Treasurer v. Boeing Air Transport, Inc., 289 U.S. 249. This latter case involved an interpretation of the Wyoming gasoline statute of 1933. National parks are reservations within the meaning of the Act of Congress. Vol. 38, Opinions of the Attorney General, p. 522. The Hayden-Cartwright Act was amended by what is known as the Buck Resolution, H. R. 6687, approved April 9, 1940. This Resolution extended the right of states to levy taxes on commodities as well as on gasoline within the Federal areas. It is respectfully submitted that the Act of Congress authorizes the collection of the tax on gasoline used by respondent in Yellowstone National Park.

For the respondent, there was a brief by Bard Ferrall of Cheyenne, Wyoming, and T. B. Weir of Helena, Montana, and oral arguments by Mr. Ferrall and Mr. Weir.

The operation of the Hayden-Cartwright Act of Congress restricts the collection of taxes by the state to sales of gasoline only within Yellowstone National Park. At the time of its enactment, the distinction between a tax on "sales" and a tax on "use" of property was fully recognized. Chapter 73, Laws Wyoming 1923. It was not until the enactment of Chapter 89, Laws 1925 that a tax on gasoline used in the state was permitted. It was not until 1933 that the Montana laws authorized a tax on the business of selling, handling or using gasoline. The Wyoming law was interpreted by the United States Supreme Court in Edelman v. Boeing Air Transport, 289 U.S. 249. The tax on the use of gasoline was authorized by Chapter 118, Laws 1937. At the time of the enactment of the Hayden-Cartwright Act, the taxation of "sales" as distinguished from "use" was well recognized by lawmakers and courts. We therefore say that it is not the intent of the Act of Congress to authorize a tax upon gasoline used in Federal reservations by the importer thereof and not sold to others. The Act of Congress of October 9, 1940, H. R. 6687, recognizes the distinction between sales and use as objects of taxation. The Federal law does not pretend to authorize the states to enforce the whole provisions of our gasoline tax laws in Federal areas, but restricted the authority to sales. It is idle to say that the Constitution differentiates the District of Columbia from the National Park. Art. I, Sec. 8, United States Constitution. The status of National Parks is described in Alington Hotel v. Fant, 278 U.S. 439; Yosemite Park v. Collins, 304 U.S. 518; Ft. Leavenworth R. Co. v. Lowe, 114 U.S. 525. We do not concede that the opinion of the Attorney General of California is even persuasive in the solution of this question. Our position is that the Act of Congress restricts the power to tax to sales within the Park and does not apply to gasoline used by respondent.

BLUME, Justice. RINER, Ch. J., and KIMBALL, J., concur.

OPINION

BLUME, Justice.

The question involved in this case is as to whether or not an act of Congress permitting the State to levy a gasoline tax on sales of gasoline in Yellowstone Park includes permission to levy a tax on the use thereof by the importer. The Yellowstone Park Company, defendant herein, is the owner of a fleet of motor trucks and busses which are used to haul freight and passengers within the confines of the Yellowstone National Park. The company imported certain gasoline and sold it. It paid a tax upon the goods so sold, and to that extent no controversy between the parties exists. But between June 10, 1935 and December 31, 1939, it also imported into the Park 545,533 gallons of gasoline which was used by it in the operation of its motor vehicles. The State claims that it should pay thereon a tax of four cents a gallon, which is the amount levied and collected by the state on gasoline sold and used in this state pursuant to Section 115-1101, Rev. St. 1931 and subsequent sections, as amended, the tax on the number of gallons mentioned totalling $ 21,817.32. The company denies that it is subject to this tax. This case was brought to recover the amount claimed by the State. After issue joined, and submission of the case under an agreed statement of facts, the lower court entered judgment for the company, from which the State has appealed.

Section 2 of the Act of Admission of Wyoming as a state provides that "exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, shall be exercised by the United States" in the Yellowstone National Park, and that the Federal Government "shall have exclusive control and jurisdiction over the same." And it is agreed herein that the laws of the State levying a tax upon gasoline would not extend to the area embraced within the Park, except only in so far as Congress has given special permission. See Standard Oil Co. v. State, 291 U.S. 242, 54 S.Ct. 381, 78 L.Ed. 775 and cases cited. Permission to tax the use of gasoline during the times above mentioned is claimed to be contained in the so-called Hayden-Cartwright Act of June 16, 1936 (Title 4, USCA Sec. 12), which in so far as applicable here reads as follows:

(a) All taxes levied by any State, Territory or the District of Columbia upon sales of gasoline and other motor vehicle fuels may be levied, in the same manner and to the same extent, upon such fuels when sold by or through post exchanges, ship stores, ship service stores, commissaries, filling stations, licensed traders, and other similar agencies, located on United States military or other reservations, when such fuels are not for the exclusive use of the United States. Such taxes, so levied, shall be paid to the proper taxing authorities of the State, Territory or the District of Columbia, within whose borders the reservation affected may be located.

(b) The officer in charge of such reservation shall, on or before the fifteenth day of each month, submit a written statement to the proper taxing authorities of the State, Territory or District of Columbia within whose borders the reservation is located, showing the amount of such motor fuel not sold for the exclusive use of the United States during the preceding month."

The statute was construed by the United States District Court of Minnesota in the case of State of Minnesota v. Ristine, 36 F.Supp. 3, wherein the court stated that "it is my opinion that the United States consented to the imposition and collection of 'sales' taxes on motor fuels, and to such taxes only. It did not consent to the imposition of 'use' or 'privilege' taxes." It also called attention to, and thought of significance, the fact that the Hayden Cartwright Act was amended by an Act adopted October 9, 1940 (54 St. at Large, 1059, Sec. 7; Supplement 4 USCA 1941 page 109), the first part of the Act in so far as quoted herein now reading as follows:

"All taxes levied by any State, Territory or the District of Columbia upon, with respect to, or measured by, sales purchases, storage, or use of gasoline or other motor vehicle fuels may be levied, in the same manner and to the same extent, with respect to such fuels when sold by or through post exchanges, ship stores, ship service stores, commissaries, filling stations, licensed traders, and other similar agencies, located on United States military or other reservations, when such fuels are not for the exclusive use of the United States. Such taxes, so levied, shall be paid to the proper taxing authorities of the State, Territory or the district of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Tharp v. Unemployment Compensation Commission, 2201
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • 20 d2 Janeiro d2 1942
    ...... case of McDermott v. State (Wash.) 82 P.2d 568. The. following cases construe written agreements ... power. State Board of Equalization v. Stanolind Oil & Gas. Company, 54 Wyo. 521. The declaration appearing in the. Act that it is enacted ... liability to the other. . . In. Fox Park Timber Co. v. Baker, 53 Wyo. 467, 84 P.2d 736,. this court has pointed ......
  • The Texas Company v. Siefried, 2276
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • 11 d2 Abril d2 1944
    ...far as the Park is concerned, were within the exterior boundaries of the State of Wyoming. If that be so then that fact differentiates the Yellowstone case from the litigation we are now For present purposes we shall assume that plaintiff's contention in this respect is correct. The plainti......
  • Director, Office of State Lands v. Merbanco, No. 01-261
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • 6 d5 Junho d5 2003
    ...181, 58 P.2d 423, 429, reh'g denied, 50 Wyo. 181, 62 P.2d 516 (1936). [¶ 48] The challengers further argue State v. Yellowstone Park Co., 57 Wyo. 502, 121 P.2d 170, 171 (1942), supports their position that "sale" includes exchanges because this Court stated a sale is "a contract between par......
  • State v. Davis Oil Co., s. 86-70
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • 25 d2 Novembro d2 1986
    ...* There must be, it is stated, a consideration or price, a seller, a purchaser and a delivery of the thing sold." State v. Yellowstone Park Co., 57 Wyo. 502, 121 P.2d 170, 171, cert. denied 316 U.S. 689, 62 S.Ct. 1280, 86 L.Ed. 1760 V. CIRCUMSTANCE DELIVERY CONCLUSION The "dependent upon th......
  • 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