CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Alabama Department of Revenue

Eleventh Circuit

CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Alabama Department of Revenue

797 F.3d 1293, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14515, 2015 WL 4924005

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit·Decided August 19, 2015·No. 12-14611·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This court previously determined the State of Alabama failed to sufficiently justify its decision to impose certain taxes on rail carriers, including CSX Transportation, Inc., when motor carriers and water carriers (both railroad competitors) are not subject to the same. See CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Alabama Department of Revenue, 720 F.3d 863 (11th Cir.2013). The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, concluding that we should reconsider whether the State has offered sufficient justification — through the imposition of an alternative, comparable tax or otherwise— for exempting railroad competitors from the sales and use taxes the State imposes on railroads when they purchase or consume diesel fuel. See Alabama Department of Revenue v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 575 U.S.-, 135 S.Ct. 1136, 1143-44, 191 L.Ed.2d 113 (2015) (stating that “an alternative, roughly equivalent tax is one possible justification that renders a tax disparity nondiscriminatory,” and, while the State “cannot offer a similar defense with respect to its exemption for water carriers,” it offers other justifications that should be considered on remand).

In light of the Supreme Court’s decision and after the benefit of supplemental briefing by the parties, we vacate our prior opinion, reported at 720 F.3d 863 (11th Cir.2013), vacate the judgment of the district court, and remand this case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion.

VACATED and REMANDED.

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

PER CURIAM:

This court previously determined the State of Alabama failed to sufficiently justify its decision to impose certain taxes on rail carriers, including CSX Transportation, Inc., when motor carriers and water carriers (both railroad competitors) are not subject to the same. See CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Alabama Department of Revenue, 720 F.3d 863 (11th Cir.2013). The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, concluding that we should reconsider whether the State has offered sufficient justification — through the imposition of an alternative, comparable tax or otherwise— for exempting railroad competitors from the sales and use taxes the State imposes on railroads when they purchase or consume diesel fuel. See Alabama Department of Revenue v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 575 U.S.-, 135 S.Ct. 1136, 1143-44, 191 L.Ed.2d 113 (2015) (stating that “an alternative, roughly equivalent tax is one possible justification that renders a tax disparity nondiscriminatory,” and, while the State “cannot offer a similar defense with respect to its exemption for water carriers,” it offers other justifications that should be considered on remand).

In light of the Supreme Court’s decision and after the benefit of supplemental briefing by the parties, we vacate our prior opinion, reported at 720 F.3d 863 (11th Cir.2013), vacate the judgment of the district court, and remand this case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion.

VACATED and REMANDED.

CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Alabama Department of Revenue, 797 F.3d 1293, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14515, 2015 WL 4924005 (11th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

797 F.3d 1293 (CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Alabama Department of Revenue) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related