United States: Massachusetts Appellate Tax Board Upholds Use Tax On Common Carrier Trucks Domiciled In State

The Massachusetts Appellate Tax Board recently upheld the imposition of use tax on vehicles that were used by a freight business headquartered in Massachusetts, but were titled and registered outside the state.1 Specifically, the Board found that the tax did not violate the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.2

Background

The taxpayer, an operator of a trucking company which is licensed by the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC)3 as a for-hire interstate carrier to operate a fleet of tractors and trailers, was headquartered in Massachusetts. While all of the administrative staff and the sole officer of the company were located in Massachusetts, the company had terminals, warehouses, and maintenance facilities in both New Jersey and Massachusetts. The vehicles were purchased from vendors in New Hampshire, New Jersey, Indiana, and Pennsylvania and were delivered to the taxpayer outside Massachusetts. All of the vehicles were registered in New Jersey and bore New Jersey license plates.

During the tax period at issue, the taxpayer operated several hundred vehicles to carry and deliver goods throughout various states. As each of the states where the vehicles were purchased either did not impose sales tax or allowed an applicable exemption from sales and use tax for vehicles engaged in interstate commerce,4 the taxpayer paid no sales tax with respect to its vehicle purchases. The taxpayer also did not file use tax returns or pay use tax to Massachusetts based on the purchase price of the vehicles, believing that the vehicles were exempt from sales and use tax.5

Pursuant to an audit of the taxpayer's books and records for the period from October 1, 2002 through January 31, 2008, the Massachusetts Commissioner of Revenue issued an assessment of more than $1.4 million, including interest and penalties, based on the imposition of use tax on the full purchase price of each tractor and trailer in the taxpayer's fleet. The taxpayer requested a full abatement of the assessment, which was denied. Thus, the taxpayer filed a petition with the Appellate Tax Board alleging that the imposition of use tax on its vehicles which were engaged in interstate commerce violated the Commerce Clause6 and the Equal Protection Clauses of the U.S. and Massachusetts Constitutions.7

Massachusetts Law

Massachusetts generally imposes sales and use tax on the storage, use or other consumption of tangible personal property in Massachusetts.8 Specifically, use tax applies to transfers of title or possession of a motor vehicle where the vehicle transferred is ultimately stored or used in Massachusetts.9 An exemption from use tax is available for vehicles purchased outside Massachusetts if the purchaser properly paid a sales tax to the jurisdiction where the original purchase took place and other requirements are met.10 Massachusetts regulations provide that the sale or transfer of a vehicle that is subsequently brought into Massachusetts for purposes of interstate commerce is exempt from Massachusetts use tax pursuant to this exemption or if the taxation is impermissible under the U.S. Constitution.11 Also, taxpayers may generally offset use tax liability with a qualifying amount paid to another jurisdiction.12

Since the taxpayer in this instance ultimately used its vehicles in Massachusetts, use tax generally applied. No exemption for sales tax paid to other jurisdictions was available, as the taxpayer did not remit sales tax to any other jurisdiction with respect to its vehicle purchases. Thus, pursuant to Massachusetts law, the use tax applied unless, as argued by the taxpayer, the tax was impermissible under the U.S. Constitution.

Commerce Clause Limitations

The Board relied upon the well-established four-prong test first applied by the U.S. Supreme Court in Complete Auto Transit13 to determine whether the use tax violated the Commerce Clause. Specifically, the Board considered whether the tax: (i) was applied to an activity with a substantial nexus with the taxing state; (ii) is fairly apportioned; (iii) does not discriminate against interstate commerce; and (iv) is fairly related to the services provided by the state. Generally, a tax must sustain all four challenges in order to withstand constitutional challenge.

Substantial Nexus

The taxpayer at issue had a significant physical presence in Massachusetts, including its headquarters, which housed the majority of its employees and regularly stored its fleet vehicles. Also, vehicle maintenance and freight operations regularly took place in Massachusetts. The Board recognized that such physical presence has generally been accepted as indicative of nexus for Commerce Clause purposes.14

However, the taxpayer maintained that because the vehicles upon which the sales tax was levied engaged in activities both within and outside Massachusetts, the requisite substantial nexus threshold was not met. Relying upon the logic applied in Jefferson Lines,15 the Board dismissed this argument as irrelevant to the substantial nexus determination and found that the tax met the first prong of the required Commerce Clause test.

Fairly Apportioned

To determine whether the use tax was fairly apportioned, the Board considered whether it was both internally and externally consistent.16 Because of the credit allowed by Massachusetts for sales tax paid to other jurisdictions, both the taxpayer and the Board agreed that the tax was internally consistent. As for external consistency, the taxpayer maintained that the assessment of use tax on the entire vehicle purchase price violated this requirement. Specifically, the taxpayer argued that the tax base on property engaged in interstate commerce must be apportioned in order to meet this external consistency requirement. Citing language used in the dismissal of a similar argument in Jefferson Lines,17 the Board noted the general acceptance of constitutionality of "taxation of sales without any division of the tax base among different States," as courts have "held such taxes properly measurable by the gross charge for the purchase, regardless of any activity outside the taxing jurisdiction that might have preceded the sale or might occur in the future."

Following the rationale applied by other jurisdictions, the Board then summarily rejected the concept of assigning an apportioned value to property used in interstate commerce for the purposes of charging use tax.18 In support of its position that the value of its vehicles subject to use tax violated the second prong of the Commerce Clause, the taxpayer referenced a case in which the Alabama Court of Appeals dismissed as unconstitutional an unapportioned use tax on the value of trucks used in interstate commerce.19 In denying this argument, the Board noted that that Court failed to address the issue of credit provisions in lieu of apportionment and deviated from a decision of its own state supreme court. Thus, the Board ruled that because the Massachusetts use tax is internally consistent and the taxpayer failed to demonstrate any credible threat of duplicate taxation by multiple jurisdictions on the vehicles, the use tax was fairly apportioned.

Discrimination against Interstate Commerce

In determining whether the Massachusetts use tax discriminated against interstate commerce, the Board noted that the use tax is applied at the same rate as the sales tax and is levied on both residents and nonresidents.20 The taxpayer based its argument that the tax was discriminatory on its determination that imposition of the use tax inflicted additional costs per mile, which made the taxpayer less competitive relative to other transportation carriers. The Board rejected the taxpayer's argument as erroneously reliant upon previous decisions21 which both struck down flat, unapportioned user fees imposed upon trucking companies for the use of state roads. In both instances, courts had found these fees discriminatory.

In rejecting the taxpayer's argument, the Board noted that the user fees were found to violate the Commerce Clause because they were not internally consistent, not because they were found to discriminate against interstate commerce. In both decisions cited by the taxpayer, taxpayers could be subject to the same tax in multiple jurisdictions. Additionally, the Board rejected the argument because the Massachusetts use tax at issue is a tax on the storage or use of tangible property in the state, rather than a tax on the use of its roads or a tax on any activity taking place outside of Massachusetts. Noting that discrimination results when a state subjects taxpayers doing business outside of the state to disparate tax treatment from taxpayers doing business inside the state, not when a state subjects all taxpayers to a tax that another state may exempt, the Board found the taxpayer's argument inadequate.

Fairly Related to Services Provided

Finally, the Board considered whether the tax was fairly related to state benefits provided to the taxpayer. Pursuant to previous decisions, the receipt of police and fire protection and the use of public roads have been found to be sufficient state-provided services to satisfy the Commerce Clause requirements.22 The taxpayer in this instance clearly received these services while using and storing its vehicles in Massachusetts, so the use tax imposed met this requirement.

Having determined that the use tax at issue met each of the above requirements, the Board ruled that the tax did not violate the Commerce Clause.

Equal Protection Clause

The taxpayer further alleged that it was denied equal protection required under both the U.S. and Massachusetts Constitutions. Specifically, the taxpayer argued that the auditor improperly required it to provide a "fair apportionment" calculation and that the Department intentionally and arbitrarily singled out the taxpayer for hostile tax treatment by assessing use tax on its vehicles and not those of its competitors.

To determine whether these allegations were accurate, the Board focused on whether the taxpayer proved that: (i) it (relative to other taxpayers similarly situated) was "selectively treated; and (ii) such selective treatment was based on impermissible considerations such as race, religion, intent to inhibit or punish the exercise of constitutional rights, or malicious of bad faith intent to injure a person."23 The taxpayer was able to provide only hearsay evidence to support its claim. Thus, the Board found and ruled that there was no violation of the taxpayer's constitutional right to equal protection.

Penalty Abatement

Massachusetts law generally allows imposition of a penalty for any failure to file a return or timely pay a tax, but provides for potential abatement in cases where the non-filing is due to reasonable cause and not to willful neglect.24

The taxpayer relied upon a letter ruling,25 which was issued by the Department in 1980 and based upon a regulation26 which was amended in 1996, to conclude that it did not have a use tax filing responsibility. Pursuant to the ruling, vehicles were exempt from sales and use tax in Massachusetts if: (i) the motor vehicle was authorized by the ICC as an interstate carrier under a designated docket number or certificate; (ii) delivery and possession of the motor vehicle was taken by the purchaser outside of Massachusetts; and (iii) the motor vehicle entered Massachusetts for the first time with a load of passengers or freight in interstate commerce. Believing that it met the requirements to qualify for this exemption, the taxpayer failed to file use tax returns or pay use tax.

The 1996 amendment, however, removed the relied-upon exemption and replaced it with an exemption from tax for vehicles used in interstate commerce only when sales and use tax was paid in other jurisdictions or when imposition of the tax would violate the Constitution. Despite this regulatory change, the letter ruling continues to be published by the Department in its official guidance27 and is available on the Department's Web site. No caveat or other warning regarding the regulatory change is included in the Department's publications. In addition, an experienced auditor testified before the Board that he was initially unaware that the exemption referenced in the letter ruling was no longer available.

The taxpayer had relied upon the guidance provided in the letter ruling, which addressed a taxpayer with identical facts to the taxpayer, for many years prior to the audit period to conclude that it owed no use tax and had no related filing responsibility. Due to this previous accurate reliance on the document, as well as the Department's continued publication of the ruling, the Board found that it was not unreasonable for the taxpayer to continue to believe the position was valid. Thus, the failure to file was based on reasonable cause and the penalty was abated.

In summary, the Board found that the imposition of use tax on the taxpayer's storage and use of its vehicles in Massachusetts did not violate the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution nor the Equal Protection Clauses of the U.S. or Massachusetts Constitutions. However, the taxpayer had reasonable cause for its failure to file use tax returns or pay use taxes. While the assessment of tax and interest was upheld, related penalties were abated.

Commentary

As most states allow for a "rolling stock" exemption from sales and use tax, Massachusetts appears to be one of only a few states imposing use tax on vehicles used in interstate commerce that are purchased, titled, and registered in another jurisdiction. This decision further highlights this unique position (perhaps in this case motivated by Massachusetts' proximity to New Hampshire, a state that does not impose a sales and use tax) and could serve to encourage other jurisdictions with similar laws to more aggressively pursue similar taxpayers who have not paid sales or use tax on fleet vehicles.

Further, the cries of injustice from the taxpayer regarding the assessment, though unproven, are interesting. Certainly this taxpayer was not the first to assert that it was singled out for disparate treatment from its competitors. While it appears that the Department is well within its legal boundaries in enforcing payment of use tax in this instance, this practice could be perceived as egregious in light of the taxpayer's allegations.

The Board's decision also highlights the need for state tax authorities to regularly review the guidance that they release to the public. The taxpayer was able to argue that it had reasonable cause for its position, resulting in the elimination of nearly $400,000 in penalties, because the taxpayer followed an old letter ruling that remained on the Department's Web site following a change in Massachusetts law that made it obsolete. One might expect the Department to invest some level of time and resources to review previously issued guidance, and ensure that obsolete guidance is formally superseded and removed from its Web site.

Footnotes

1. Regency Transportation, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue, Mass. App. Tax Bd., Docket No. C310361, Dec. 4, 2014.

2. U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8.

3. Though the taxpayer was originally licensed by the ICC, that organization was dissolved in 1995. Since 1996, the U.S. Department of Transportation has licensed for-hire interstate carriers.

4. The exemption for vehicles engaged in interstate commerce is typically referred to as a "rolling stock" exemption from sales tax.

5. This understanding was based on Letter Ruling 80-22, Mass. Dept. of Rev. (1980). Note that the guidance provided in this document relied upon regulations which have since been modified. Guidance included in this document indicated that vehicles were exempt from sales and use tax in Massachusetts if: (i) the motor vehicle was authorized by the ICC as an interstate carrier under a designated docket number or certificate; (ii) delivery and possession of the motor vehicle was taken by the purchaser outside of Massachusetts; and (iii) the motor vehicle entered Massachusetts for the first time with a load of passengers or freight in interstate commerce.

6. U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8.

7. U.S. CONST. amend. XIV; MASS. CONST. art. CVI.

8. MASS. GEN. LAWS ch. 641, § 2.

9. MASS. REGS. CODE tit. 830, § 64H.25.1(3)(a).

10. MASS. REGS. CODE tit. 830, § 64H.25.1(7)(g). Additional requirements which must be met for the exemption to apply include: (i) the sales or use tax was paid and legally due to the state or territory; (ii) the purchaser did not have the right to receive a refund or credit of the sales or use tax from the state or territory where the sale occurred; and (iii) the state or territory to which the sales or use tax was paid allows a corresponding exemption with respect to motor vehicle sales and use taxes paid to Massachusetts.

11. MASS. REGS. CODE tit. 830, § 64H.25.1(7)(h).

12. MASS. GEN. LAWS ch. 641, § 7(c).

13. Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, 430 U.S. 274 (1977).

14. D.H. Holmes v. McNamara, 486 U.S. 24 (1988).

15. Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Jefferson Lines, 514 U.S. 175 (1995). In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the imposition of a sales tax by Oklahoma on the full price of a bus ticket for travel that originated in Oklahoma but terminated elsewhere.

16. This test for fair apportionment was developed in Goldberg v. Sweet, 488 U.S. 252 (1989). Specifically, a tax is internally consistent if it is structured so that if every state imposed an identical tax, no multiple taxation would result. A tax is externally consistent if a state taxes only that portion of interstate activity which reasonably reflects the in-state component of the activity being taxed.

17. Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Jefferson Lines, 514 U.S. 175 (1995). The taxpayer further argued in this case for the applicability of sales tax on an apportioned value of the bus ticket, rather than the gross purchase price. This argument was rejected and the sales tax applied to the full value of the ticket.

18. Citing, e.g., Irwin Industrial Tool Co. v. Illinois Department of Revenue, 938 N.E.2d 459 (Ill. 2010); Ex Parte Fleming Foods of Alabama, Inc., 648 So. 2d 577 (Ala. 1994); Fleming Foods v. Alabama Department of Revenue, 514 U.S. 1063 (1995).

19. Boyd Brothers Transportation, Inc. v. State Department of Revenue, 976 So. 2d 471 (Ala. App. 2007).

20. MASS. GEN. LAWS ch. 641, § 2.

21. American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. Scheiner, 483 U.S. 266 (1987); American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. Secretary of Administration, 613 N.E.2d 95 (Mass. 1993).

22. Goldberg v. Sweet, 488 U.S. 252 (1989).

23. Rubinovitz v. Rograto, 60 F. 3d 906 (1st Cir. 1995).

24. MASS. GEN. LAWS ch. 62C, §33(f).

25. Letter Ruling 80-22, Mass. Dept. of Rev. (1980).

26. MASS. REGS. CODE tit. 830, §64H.25.1.

27. Official MassTax Guide, PWS-580 (West 2014).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions