Capitol Greyhound Lines v. Brice

339 U.S. 542, 70 S. Ct. 806, 94 L. Ed. 2d 1053, 94 L. Ed. 1053, 1950 U.S. LEXIS 2490, 17 A.L.R. 2d 407
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedMay 15, 1950
Docket118
StatusPublished
Cited by112 cases

This text of 339 U.S. 542 (Capitol Greyhound Lines v. Brice) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Capitol Greyhound Lines v. Brice, 339 U.S. 542, 70 S. Ct. 806, 94 L. Ed. 2d 1053, 94 L. Ed. 1053, 1950 U.S. LEXIS 2490, 17 A.L.R. 2d 407 (1950).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Black

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The basic question presented is whether one of two Maryland taxes imposed on all common carriers transporting passengers over Maryland roads can be exacted from interstate carriers consistently with the commerce clause of the Federal Constitution. A subsidiary contention impliedly raised by carrier appellants here is that the tax is invalid as applied to them. The Supreme Court of Maryland upheld the tax, -Md. -, 64 A. 2d 284. The case is here on appeal under 28 U. S. C. § 1257 (2).

The tax challenged by appellants is prescribed by § 25A of Art. 66% of the Annotated Code of Maryland, 1947 Cum. Supp. In the language of appellants that section imposes “a tax of 2% upon the fair market value of motor vehicles used in interstate commerce as a condition precedent to the issuance of certificates of title thereto (the issuance of such certificates being a further condition precedent to the registration and operation of such vehicles in,, the State of Maryland) . ...” 1

First. Appellants do not contend that as interstate carriers they are wholly exempt from state taxation. This Court and others have consistently upheld taxes on inter *544 state carriers to compensate a state fairly for the privilege of using its roads or for the cost of administering state traffic regulations. 2 Courts have invoked the commerce clause to invalidate state taxes on interstate carriers only upon finding that: (1) the tax discriminated against interstate commerce in favor of intrastate commerce; (2) the tax was imposed on the privilege of doing an interstate business as distinguished from a tax exacting contributions for road construction and maintenance or for administration of road laws; or (3) the amount of the tax exceeded fair compensation to the state. 3 This Maryland tax applies to interstate and intrastate commerce without discrimination. The tax proceeds are used by Maryland wholly for road purposes, and the State Supreme Court held that the tax was imposed for the privilege of road use. And neither in the Maryland courts nor here have appellants specifically charged that the amount of taxes imposed on carriers will always be in excess of fair compensation. Their challenge is leveled against the formula, not the amount.

The taxes upheld have taken many forms. Examples are taxes based on mileage, chassis weight, tonnage-capacity, or horsepower, singly or in combination — a list which does not begin to exhaust the innumerable factors bearing on the fairness of compensation by each carrier to a state. 4 The difficulty in gearing taxes to these factors was recognized by this Court as early as Kane v. New Jersey, 242 U. S. 160, 168, where it said that so long as fees are reasonable in amount “it is clearly within the discretion of the State to determine whether the compen *545 sation for the use of its highways by automobiles shall be determined by way of a fee, payable annually or semiannually, or by a toll based on mileage or otherwise.” 5 Later, in rejecting contentions that the validity of taxes must be determined by formula rather than result, the Court held that a flat fee on the privilege of using state highways “is not a forbidden burden on interstate commerce” unless “unreasonable in amount.” Morf v. Bingaman, 298 U. S. 407, 412. See also Aero Transit Co. v. Comm’rs, 332 U. S. 495, and annotation thereto, 92 L. Ed. 109, 119-120. Yet clearly a flat fee is not geared to mileage, weight or any other factor relevant in considering the fairness of compensation for road use. Thus, unless we are to depart from prior decisions, the Maryland tax based on the cost of the vehicles should be judged by its result, not its formula, and must stand unless proven to be unreasonable in amount for the privilege granted.

Appellants, however, in effect urge that we make an exception to the general rule and strike down this tax formula regardless of whether the amount of the tax is within the limits of fair compensation. No tax precisely like this has previously been before us. Appellants argue that a tax on vehicle value should be forbidden by the commerce clause because it varies for each carrier without relation to road use. In support of this contention, they point to the facts shown in this record. Each of the appellant carriers, according to admitted al *546 legations, bought a new passenger-carrying vehicle and declared a purpose to use its vehicle on one of its Maryland routes. The Maryland portions of these three routes are 9, 41 and 64 miles respectively. The state taxes computed on the fair market value of each vehicle are $505.17, $580 and $372.55, respectively. This showing does indicate that the title tax falls short of achieving uniformity among carriers in relation to road use. Moreover, as argued, it may well be unwise to subject carriers to the monetary temptation incident to the application of a tax that hits a carrier only when it purchases a bus. But that is not our issue. And it should be noted that the total charge of Maryland for the privilege of using its roads will not show the same disparity among carriers. For Maryland also charges a mileage tax, 6 and this tax added to the title tax is what Maryland actually charges for its road privileges. Thus the total charge as among carriers does vary substantially with the mileage traveled.

We recognize that in the absence of congressional action this Court has prescribed the rules which determine the power of states to tax interstate traffic, and therefore should alter these rules if necessary to protect interstate commerce from obstructive barriers. But with full appreciation of congenital infirmities of the Maryland formula — and indeed of any formula in this field — as well as of our present rules to test its validity, we are by no means sure that the remedy suggested by appellants would not bring about greater ills. Complete fairness would require that a state tax formula vary with every factor affecting appropriate compensation for road use. These factors, like those relevant in considering the constitutionality of other state taxes, are so countless that we must be content with “rough approximation rather than precision.” Harvester Co. v. Evatt, 329 U. S. 416, 422-423. Each additional factor adds to administrative bur *547 dens of enforcement, 7 which fall alike on taxpayers and government.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

American Trucking Ass'n v. State
852 A.2d 142 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 2004)
Doran v. Massachusetts Turnpike Authority
348 F.3d 315 (First Circuit, 2003)
Doran v. Massachusetts Turnpike Authority
256 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D. Massachusetts, 2003)
Jorling v. United States Department of Energy
218 F.3d 96 (Second Circuit, 2000)
Franks & Son, Inc. v. State
966 P.2d 1232 (Washington Supreme Court, 1998)
Roehl Transport, Inc. v. Indiana Department of State Revenue
653 N.E.2d 539 (Indiana Tax Court, 1995)
Untitled California Attorney General Opinion
California Attorney General Reports, 1995
American Trucking Associations v. Secretary of State
595 A.2d 1014 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1991)
American Trucking Assns., Inc. v. Smith
496 U.S. 167 (Supreme Court, 1990)
American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. Goldstein
541 A.2d 955 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1988)
American Trucking Assns., Inc. v. Scheiner
483 U.S. 266 (Supreme Court, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
339 U.S. 542, 70 S. Ct. 806, 94 L. Ed. 2d 1053, 94 L. Ed. 1053, 1950 U.S. LEXIS 2490, 17 A.L.R. 2d 407, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/capitol-greyhound-lines-v-brice-scotus-1950.