United States v. State Road Department of Florida
Decision Date | 16 May 1958 |
Docket Number | No. 17066.,17066. |
Citation | 255 F.2d 516 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. STATE ROAD DEPARTMENT OF State of FLORIDA, Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Charles K. Rice, Asst. Atty. Gen., Carter Bledsoe, Lee A. Jackson, Melva M. Graney, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D, C., Edith House, Asst. U. S. Atty., Jacksonville, Fla., James L. Guilmartin, U. S. Atty., Miami, Fla., for appellant.
Charles T. Boyd, Jr., Jacksonville, Fla., Richard B. Austin, Tallahassee, Fla., Ross H. Stanton, Jr., Resident Atty., Tallahassee, Fla., State Road Department of the State of Florida, for appellee.
Jennings P. Felix, Seattle, Wash., John J. O'Connell, Atty. Gen., Paul L. Adams, Atty. Gen., Samuel J. Torina, Sol. Gen., Lansing, Mich., T. Carl Holbrook, William D. Dexter, Asst. Attys. Gen., amici curiae.
Before TUTTLE, BROWN and WISDOM, Circuit Judges.
This appeal presents the question whether the Federal Transportation Tax is applicable to transportation furnished to highway-using vehicles as a part of the state highway system of a ferry operated for a charge by the Florida State Road Department.
The statutes in question are Sections 4271, 4272, 4291 and 6672, of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as follows:
For the purpose of this appeal it is agreed that the appellee Road Department operates a ferry near the mouth of the St. Johns River near Jacksonville, Florida, which is an essential link in the state highway A1A from Key West to Fernandina, Florida. It charges for the services according to classifications of vehicles from bicycles to trailer tractors. It has collected substantial fares during the years in question and has failed to collect from the users of the ferry the 3 percent tax and has thus failed to pay such tax to the United States.
It appears from briefs permitted to be filed as amici curiae by the States of Michigan and Washington that similar situations exist in those two states and perhaps in others. The states contend that such ferry service is rendered by the state as traditionally and historically a fundamental governmental function of maintaining a system of state highways, and that in rendering this service the state is not "a person engaged in the business of transporting property for hire." In its pleadings and motion for summary judgment the State Road Department did not contend that the application of this tax to this function would be violative of the federal constitution. However, as an aid to the construction of the statute and an understanding of the intent of Congress in Section 4272 dealing with exemptions, the State asserts that to construe the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
San Antonio Met. Transit Authority v. Donovan
...v. Best, 573 F.2d 1095, 1102-03 (9th Cir.1978) (Licensing of drivers is an integral state function.); United States v. State Road Department of Florida, 255 F.2d 516, 518 (5th Cir.1958) (Building and maintenance of a system of state roads is essentially a governmental function.) Mass transi......
-
State ex rel. Washington Toll Bridge Authority v. Yelle, 36240
...is acting in its governmental capacity. United States v. King County, Wash., 281 F. 686 (C.C.A. 9th; 1922); United States v. State Road Dept., Florida, 255 F.2d 516 (C.A. 5th; 1958); United States v. Washington Toll Bridge Authority, 190 F.Supp. 95 (D.C.W.D.Wash., S.D.; 1960) (Currently on ......
-
Gross v. Washington State Ferries
...is acting in its governmental capacity. United States v. King County, Wash., 281 F. 686 (C.C.A. 9th; 1922); United States v. State Road Dept., Florida, 255 F.2d 516 (C.A. 5th; 1958); United States v. Washington Toll Bridge Authority, 190 F.Supp. 95 (D.C.W.D.Wash., S.D.; 1960) (Currently on ......
-
United States v. Washington Toll Bridge Authority
...link in a highway, clearly it is as much an integral part of the highway system as a bridge. United States v. State Road Dept. of the State of Florida, 5 Cir., 1958, 255 F.2d 516; United States v. King County, Wash., 9 Cir., 1922, 281 F. While the taxes in question are imposed on users and ......