United States: New York Tax Insights - Volume 7, Issue 3, March 2016


By Michael J. Hilkin

In a class action lawsuit, an Albany County trial court held that flat highway use registration and decal fees charged to heavy motor vehicles operating on New York public highways discriminate against non-New York based businesses in violation of the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Owner Operator Indep. Drivers Ass'n et al. v. N.Y.S. Dep't of Taxation and Fin., No. 5551-13 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Albany Cnty. Jan. 22, 2016). The trial court declared the registration and decal fees unconstitutional even though they amount to only $15.00 and $4.00, respectively, and are charged once every three years.

New York Highway Use Tax and Fee Scheme. New York imposes a highway use tax "for the privilege of operating" certain heavy vehicles (such as semi-trailers) on New York highways. Tax Law § 503(1). The highway use tax is based on the gross weight of a vehicle and the number of miles such vehicle is operated on New York highways. The highway use tax was not at issue in the Owner Operator case.

Carriers with vehicles subject to the highway use tax must apply for a certificate of registration and pay a $15.00 fee (Tax Law § 502(1)(a)). The New York State Department of Taxation and Finance (the "Department") is also authorized to "require the use of decals as evidence that a carrier has a valid certificate of registration," and charge $4.00 for each decal (Tax Law § 502(6)(a)). While the Department is authorized to issue replacement certificates of registration or decals once every year (Tax Law § 509(8)), it instead issues certificates of registration and decals in series, each of which has always been valid for at least a three-year period. According to the Department, the purpose of the registration and decal fees is to enforce and ensure compliance with the highway use tax.

Case Background and Decision. The plaintiffs filed a complaint in New York Supreme Court (a trial court) seeking injunctive and declaratory relief and a refund of registration and decal fees. The complaint alleged, among other things, that the registration and decal fees constituted an undue burden on interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause because they imposed a higher per mile tax rate on out-of-state trucks.

In an earlier decision, the trial court certified the case as a class action lawsuit, including in the class interstate motor carriers residing outside of New York State that paid the registration and decal fee and are now, or may in the future be, liable for such fees. Now, the trial court has held that the registration and decal fees violate the Commerce Clause and has enjoined the Department from implementing or enforcing such fees against the plaintiffs.

The trial court's analysis primarily relied on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. Scheiner, 483 U.S. 266 (1987). In American Trucking, the Court ruled that two flat taxes imposed by Pennsylvania on commercial users of its highways violated the Commerce Clause. Pennsylvania imposed an annual $25.00 fee for an identification loan marker exclusively on out-of-state vehicles, and also imposed an annual $36.00 per vehicle axle fee on in-state and out-of-state vehicles. The Court in American Trucking stated that the marker fee had the practical effect of imposing flat taxes at a cost five times as high per mile for out-of-state vehicles than for local vehicles, and the axle fee similarly exerted "inexorable hydraulic pressure on interstate businesses" to do business within the state enacting such a fee rather than among several states. While the Court in American Trucking agreed that the Commerce Clause does not require states to avoid flat taxes "when they are the only practicable means of collecting revenues from users and the use of a more finely gradated user-fee schedule would pose genuine administrative burdens," the Court concluded that such justification was not applicable to the Pennsylvania taxes under consideration.

The trial court in Owner Operator treated the registration and decal fees as state taxes subject to Commerce Clause scrutiny. The trial court found, based on interrogatory responses, deposition testimony, and an expert affidavit that, in fiscal years 2013 and 2014, the cost per mile for New York's registration and decal fees was about 4 to 5 times greater for non-New York based businesses than it was for New York based businesses. This evidence demonstrated that the registration and decal fees have a discriminatory impact on interstate commerce.

The Department did not submit any evidence disputing the discriminatory effect of the registration and decal fees and instead argued that the fees were below the level that any court had ever considered worthy of Commerce Clause scrutiny. The trial court, however, stated that a fee's constitutionality cannot turn on the "amount of the flat fees charged" and pointed out that "the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected the notion of a 'de minimus' defense to an allegation that a tax is discriminatory under the Commerce Clause."

The Department also argued that the registration and decal fees could not practically be apportioned, because the miles traveled on New York highways by any covered vehicle is not known until the relevant highway use tax return is filed. The court, however, stated that it could "envision several ways that registration and decal fees can be apportioned," including by providing credits on highway use tax returns based on annual mileage traveled in New York by a vehicle subject to the fees.

Additional Insights

The court in Owner Operator highlighted that its decision is consistent with other state court decisions issued after American Trucking by Alabama, Maine, and Maryland courts, each of which struck down unapportioned flat fees similar to those at issue in Owner Operator. Those other state cases involved challenges to fees ranging from $12.00 to $25.00 a year. Collectively, such decisions show that even seemingly nominal fees are subject to scrutiny under Commerce Clause principles. It is not yet known whether the Department will appeal the decision in Owner Operator.

Separately, the procedural posture of the Owner Operator case is notable. While the vast majority of New York State tax cases originate in the New York State Division of Tax Appeals (New York's administrative tax appeals system), the plaintiffs in Owner Operator brought their case directly to the New York Supreme Court. While not discussed in the summary judgment decision, the plaintiffs' action was likely allowed to proceed because it involves a constitutional challenge to the basic applicability of a New York tax statute and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, circumstances in which taxpayers may not be required to exhaust administrative appeals before going to court. Further, Owner Operator is a rare example of a class action lawsuit successfully brought against the Department. As a result of the unique procedural posture, if the decision is not reversed on appeal, further proceedings may be necessary to address damages, class administration, and attorneys' fees.


By Hollis L. Hyans

A New York State Administrative Law Judge has held in eight separate decisions that several owners of limited partnership interests could not claim refunds for credits under the State's Qualified Empire Zone Enterprise ("QEZE") program for real property taxes, even though the Department's retroactive application of amendments to the statute denying the credits had been found unconstitutional due to the claims were not being timely asserted. Matter of Dorothy Krause F/B/O Angela Krause et al., DTA Nos. 826752-826759 (N.Y.S. Div. of Tax App., Feb. 4, 2016).

Facts. Each of the petitioners in the eight related matters (referred to as the "Owners") owned an interest in 450 South Salina Street Partnership ("450 South Salina") as a beneficiary of the Alfred F. Krause Family Benefit Trust (the "Trust"). 450 South Salina owns and operates real property in Syracuse, New York, and invested more than $4.2 million to acquire and renovate the property. 450 South Salina filed a New York State Partnership Return for 2008, claiming a QEZE credit for real property taxes of approximately $142,000. The return included a New York Partner's Schedule K-1 for the Trust, allocating to the Trust a portion of the QEZE credit for real property taxes.

In April 2009, the New York Legislature enacted modifications to the law governing QEZE-certified businesses, requiring all such businesses to verify that they qualified for continued certification under new criteria, in order to receive benefits for years beginning on or after January 1, 2008. The Department issued technical advice requiring individuals claiming credits through a pass-through entity, such as a partnership, to file an EZ Retention Certificate with their tax returns claiming a QEZE Credit for tax years beginning after January 1, 2008. Legislative Changes to the Empire Zone Program, TSB-M-09(4)I, TSB-M-09(5)C (Dep't of Taxation & Fin., Apr. 15, 2009). In April 2009, the Department also modified its Form IT-606, Claim for QEZE Credit for Real Property Taxes, for the 2008 year, to include a new instruction requiring the attachment of a retention certificate.

In June 2009, the Department of Economic Development revoked the certification of 450 South Salina, claiming it did not provide economic returns greater in value than the tax benefits it received. 450 South Salina appealed the Notice of Decertification, and a copy of that appeal was provided to the Assistant Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Taxation and Finance. In its appeal, 450 South Salina argued that the amendment to the Tax Law was unconstitutional and that continued certification was warranted. The appeal was denied by the Empire Zone Designation Board in the fall of 2009.

Each Owner filed New York State personal income tax returns for 2008, at a time after TSB-M-09(4)I was issued, and after 450 South Salina received notice of revocation. Each Owner believed he or she was legally barred from claiming the QEZE credit.

In 2013, as discussed in the July 2013 issue of New York Tax Insights, the Court of Appeals held in James Square Associates L.P. v. Mullen, 21 N.Y.3d 233 (2013), that the Department's retroactive application of the 2009 amendments was unconstitutional, and that revocations of certifications made retroactive to January 1, 2008, were void.

In 2013, the Owners all filed amended New York State personal income tax returns for 2008, claiming the QEZE credits for real property taxes. All the claims were disallowed, on the grounds that the amended returns were untimely.

ALJ Decision. The ALJ upheld the Department's denial of the refunds, finding that the amended tax returns were all filed after the expiration of the three-year statute for claiming refunds. While recognizing that informal claims for refunds might be sufficient, here the ALJ rejected the arguments of the Owners that they had provided informal refund claims, either by filing a partnership return with a Schedule K-1 showing distributions to them, or by providing a copy of the appeal of 450 South Salina's Notice of Decertification to an official of the Department. The ALJ held that neither submission amounted to an informal refund claim, relying on a federal case, Rothman v. United States, 75-2 U.S.T. C. (CCH) ¶ 9720 (D. N.J. 1975), which found that a protest by a partnership is not considered an informal claim for a refund by a partner.

The Owners argued that they had been prevented from filing returns claiming the QEZE credit by TSB-M-09(4)I and the enactment of the new statute, and that any such claims for credits would have involved filing a false or fraudulent return. The ALJ found that argument "without merit," since a taxpayer may file a protective claim to protect an interest as long as the claim fully discloses the facts, nature and basis for the protective claim. The ALJ also rejected the argument that the denial of the refunds violated the constitutional requirement for "meaningful, backward-looking relief" for constitutional violations, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in McKesson Corp. v. Division of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco, 496 U.S. 18 (1990), finding that New York's system of allowing timely claims for refund satisfies the Due Process Clause.

Additional Insights

These cases highlight the importance of filing timely claims for refund on a protective basis whenever a taxpayer believes a statute is being improperly applied. Litigation challenging the Department's position can take many years to resolve, particularly when a constitutional issue is involved, and, even when a statute is ultimately declared unconstitutional, New York law includes no provision for a blanket extension of the ordinary statute of limitations while issues are being litigated or when a statute is found to be unconstitutional. Taxpayers who decide to wait while litigation in a "lead case" proceeds should be sure to protect their interests with timely refund claims.

To continue reading this article, please click here.

Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Morrison & Foerster LLP. All rights reserved

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.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
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
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
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.


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.


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