Worldwide Equip. Inc v. U.S.A
Decision Date | 17 May 2010 |
Docket Number | No. 08-5950.,08-5950. |
Citation | 605 F.3d 319 |
Parties | WORLDWIDE EQUIPMENT, INC., Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant-Appellant,v.UNITED STATES of America, Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff-Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
ARGUED: James E. Burke, Jr., Keating, Muething & Klekamp, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellant. Bethany B. Hauser, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. ON BRIEF: James E. Burke, Jr., Sue A. Erhart, Brenna L. Penrose, Keating, Muething & Klekamp, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellant. Bethany B. Hauser, Richard Farber, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Richard H.C. Clay, Dinsmore & Shohl, Louisville, Kentucky, Emily Fritts Whitty, Morris & Player, Louisville, Kentucky, Mark H. Sidman, Rose-Michele Nardi, Sandra B. Vipond, Weiner, Brodsky, Sidman & Kider, Washington, D.C., for Amici Curiae.
Before: MERRITT, COOK, and WHITE, Circuit Judges.
WHITE, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which COOK, J., joined. MERRITT, J. (pp. 332-33), delivered a separate dissenting opinion.
Plaintiff Worldwide Equipment, Inc. (Worldwide), a heavy-truck dealer and authorized distributor of Mack Trucks, serves the coal-mining industry in Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia and Virginia, and is required to collect a federal retail excise tax (FRET) on the sale of certain trucks. Worldwide filed this suit for a refund of $119,302 in heavy-truck excise taxes it paid the IRS for the first quarter of 2004, related to the sale of eight Model RD888SX coal-hauler dump trucks. Defendant Government counterclaimed for $1,149,140.59 in excise taxes claimed to be due for the period from 1999 to early 2003. The Government sought summary judgment on both the claim and counterclaim. The district court granted the Government's motion on both claims. We vacate the grant of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings.
Neither party challenges the district court's statement of underlying facts:
The Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 4051(a),1 imposes a 12% tax on the first retail sale of any heavy-truck chassis or body weighing over 33,000 pounds if the chassis or body is sold for use as a component part of a “highway vehicle.” “Highway vehicle” is defined as:
(ii) Certain vehicles specially designed for offhighway transportation. A self-propelled vehicle, or a trailer or semitrailer, is not a highway vehicle if it is (A) specially designed for the primary function of transporting a particular type of load other than over the public highway in connection with a ... mining ... operation[ ] and (B) if by reason of such special design, the use of such vehicle to transport such load over the public highways is substantially limited or substantially impaired. For purposes of applying the rule of (B) of this subdivision, account may be taken of whether the vehicle may travel at regular highway speeds, requires a special permit for highway use, is overweight, overheight or overwidth for regular use, and any other relevant considerations [26 C.F.R. § 48.4061(a)-1(d)(2)(ii).]
A vehicle's taxability is determined by application of an ex ante analysis that examines a vehicle's intended primary design. See Dillon Ranch Supply v. United States, 652 F.2d 873, 881 (9th Cir.1981) ) ; see also Freightliner of Grand Rapids v. United States, 351 F.Supp.2d 718, 728 (W.D.Mich.2004) ( )
The Government's motion for summary judgment argued that the RD888SX was not specially designed for the primary function of transporting a load other than over the public highway because it was designed to be “a dual-use on/off highway vehicle,” and because it was not specially designed to transport a particular type of load. The district court agreed that the exception does not apply:
Worldwide raises three objections to the district court's opinion: 1) that the court failed to properly apply the summary judgment standard; 2) that the court applied an incorrect legal standard when analyzing the “special design” test, in that Worldwide need only show that the primary function of the RD888SX was the transport of coal off-road; and 3) that the court misconstrued several key pieces of evidence, thereby making assumptions of fact that were not supported by the record. In essence, Worldwide challenges the district court's conclusion that, as a matter of law, the RD888SX did not meet the special design prong of the off-highway vehicle exception.
This court reviews de novo a district court's grant of summary judgment. Sherwin-Williams Co. v. United States, 403 F.3d 793, 795 (6th Cir.2005). Summary judgment is properly granted “if the pleadings, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gonzales v. United States
...that if tax liability were dependent upon actual use, the tax scheme would be rendered unworkable. See Worldwide Equip., Inc. v. United States, 605 F.3d 319, 322-23 (6th Cir. 2010) (ruling on the taxability of heavy trucks under I.R.C. § 4051(a), and stating that "a use test would be unwork......
-
Worldwide Equip. of TN, Inc. v. United States
...though it can travel on the highways—and even if it is used on the highways more than "incidentally." Worldwide Equip., Inc. v. United States, 605 F.3d 319, 324-25 (6th Cir. 2009) ("Highway use that is more than incidental does not necessarily mean the truck was not designed primarily for o......
-
King v. Pennsylvania Life Ins. Co., 10-1672
...that "expert witnesses cannot create a question of fact by simply stating conclusions on ultimate issues," Worldwide Equip., Inc. v. United States, 605 F.3d 319, 326 (6th Cir. 2010), because "[a]n expertwho supplies nothing but a bottom line supplies nothing of value to the judicial process......
-
Worldwide Equip. of TN, Inc. v. United States, Civil No. 14-108-ART
...the public highway." 26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(48)(A)(i). After all, the Sixth Circuit held precisely that. See Worldwide Equip., Inc. v. United States, 605 F.3d 319, 323 (6th Cir. 2010). And the government does not appear to argue that evidence of post-sale use would be relevant to show the reas......