Union Oil Co. v. State

98 P.2d 660, 2 Wash. 2d 436
CourtWashington Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 29, 1940
DocketNo. 27379.
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 98 P.2d 660 (Union Oil Co. v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Washington Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Union Oil Co. v. State, 98 P.2d 660, 2 Wash. 2d 436 (Wash. 1940).

Opinions

*437 Millard, J.

This action was brought by the Union Oil Company of California to recover against the state of Washington the amount of excise taxes exacted of the plaintiff by the state under the provisions of chapter 58, Laws of 1933, p. 298, Rem. Rev. Stat. (Sup.), § 8327-1 [P. C. § 7068-71] et seq., governing the sale and distribution of gasoline. The appeal is from the judgment of dismissal, rendered upon the plaintiff’s refusal to plead further after a demurrer had been sustained to the complaint and supplemental complaint. The allegations of fact admitted by the demurrer to be true are summarized as follows:

Appellant corporation is engaged in the business of refining, manufacturing, producing and compounding motor vehicle fuel. It imports the fuel into this state for the purpose of sale and distribution, and is authorized, pursuant to the provisions of § 2, chapter 58, Laws of 1933, p. 300 (Rem. Rev. Stat. (Sup.), § 8327-2 [P. C. § 7068-72]), by license to engage in business as a distributor of motor vehicle fuel within this state. It makes both wholesale and retail sales, and owns and operates, through salaried employees, as a part of its retail business, many retail service stations throughout the state for the purpose of sale and distribution of its products.

The motor vehicle fuel, when first brought into this state, is stored in the appellant’s large bulk storage tanks and thereafter transferred from those tanks, by appellant’s trucks, to the smaller storage tanks of the service stations maintained by appellant for direct sale to the public. In the transfer of gasoline from the bulk tanks to the service station tanks, some of the gasoline is lost by evaporation or by spills incident to handling, and some gasoline remains unsold in the service station tanks. Between July 1, 1934, and April 1,1937, appellant sold 8,732,540 gallons of gasoline from *438 its retail service stations and paid the statutory tax thereon, at the rate of five cents a gallon, without protest.

The state treasurer and state director of licenses insisted that appellant should pay the tax upon the total number of gallons withdrawn from appellant’s bulk storage tanks and delivered to tanks at appellant’s retail service stations, rather than on the number of gallons actually sold from the retail service stations. Between the dates mentioned, gasoline in the amount of 151,017 gallons was delivered to appellant’s service stations in excess of the amount sold, distributed, or used therefrom; the difference being the result of' evaporation, stock handling, or other causes, including the quantity remaining unsold in the service station tanks.

In order to avoid penalties, appellant paid, under protest, to the state treasurer the sum of $7,550.85 as a tax computed at the rate of five cents a gallon on the number of gallons not sold or distributed from the service stations, and paid an additional tax of $2,456.30 demanded by the state for unsold gasoline subsequent to the filing of appellant’s original complaint. The prayer is for return by the state of the several sums paid by the appellant under protest.

Appellant does not challenge the validity of chapter 58, Laws of 1933, under which excise taxes are imposed on the sale and distribution of gasoline. It is the position of appellant that the mere transfer of the gasoline from its bulk storage tanks to its service station tanks is not a taxable act under chapter 58, Laws of 1933.

Section 5, chapter 58, Laws of 1933, p. 305, provides:

“Every distributor shall pay, in addition to any other taxes provided by law, an excise tax to the treasurer of this state of five (5) cents for each gallon of motor vehicle fuel sold, distributed or used by it in the State *439 of Washington. The tax herein imposed shall be collected and paid to the State of Washington but once in respect to any motor vehicle fuel. . . . ”

Section 1 of chapter 58, Laws of 1933, p. 298, defines “distributor” as intended to mean and include:

“ . . . every person, firm, association or corporation who refines, manufactures, produces or compounds motor vehicle fuel and sells, distributes, or in any manner uses the same in this state; also every person, firm, association or corporation who imports any motor vehicle fuel into this state and sells, distributes, or in any manner uses the same in this state whether in the original packages or containers in which it is imported or otherwise; also every person, firm, association or corporation who having acquired in this state in the original package or container, motor vehicle fuel, shall distribute or sell the same, whether in such original package or container in which the same was imported or otherwise, or in any manner use the same.”

Under § 1, chapter 58, Laws of 1933, a distributor is one who “ . . . sells, distributes, or in any manner uses” motor vehicle fuel. Under § 5 of the same statute, “Every distributor” is required to pay, “in addition to any other taxes provided by law, an excise tax . . . for each gallon of motor vehicle fuel sold, distributed or used by it in the State of Washington.”

The question to be answered is whether appellant distributor has “sold, distributed, or used” within this state the motor vehicle fuel on which the state seeks to collect a gallonage or excise tax.

Counsel for the state concede that the tax is not exacted for the sale or use of the gasoline, but contend that it is an excise tax upon the distributor for the privilege of engaging in such business, measured by the number of gallons distributed by such distributor.

It is clear that the gasoline was not sold or used by appellant; therefore, unless the gasoline was dis *440 tributed by appellant within this state, the tax claimed may not be exacted.

When appellant transferred the gasoline from its bulk storage tanks into the tanks of its own service stations, it did not distribute that gasoline to itself. Surely, it is not necessary to recite sustaining authority for the statement that one can not distribute to himself. The argument that appellant’s view of the law would give an advantage to the service stations which it operates as against the independently owned stations, is one that should be addressed to the legislature, the policy-making branch of our government.

There is no language in the statute warranting a construction which writes into the statute a provision for collection of a tax from the distributor upon each gallon of gasoline withdrawn by such distributor from that distributor’s storage tanks. State v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland, 194 Wash. 591, 78 P. (2d) 1090, may not be correctly cited as authority to sustain a construction authorizing collection of a tax from the distributor upon each gallon of gasoline withdrawn by such distributor from that distributor’s storage tanks. Section 78, chapter 180, Laws of 1935, p. 749, which requires payment of “an excise tax” by each distributor of fuel oil was before us in the case cited; however, the language employed in chapter 180, Laws of 1935, p. 706 (Rem. Rev. Stat. (Sup.), § 8370-1 [P. C. § 7030-61] et seq.),

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

Related

Associated Grocers, Inc. v. State
787 P.2d 22 (Washington Supreme Court, 1990)
State v. Zornes
475 P.2d 109 (Washington Supreme Court, 1970)
State ex rel. Graham v. Johnson
138 S.E.2d 773 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1964)
Texas Company v. C.F. Siefried
147 P.2d 837 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1944)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
98 P.2d 660, 2 Wash. 2d 436, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/union-oil-co-v-state-wash-1940.