How state governments use taxes and fees

7/29/2019 How state governments use taxes and fees

1/98

How Is the Money Used?

Federal and State Cases Distinguishing

Taxes and Fees

Background Paper No. 63March 2013

by Joseph Henchman1

1 Jp H V P S & L Pj F. H D B, L L, A S pj.


2/98

2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

p p , pj

pp q, p . T F C L R p , p .

T p p p pp .

T , p p pp p p p, p, p p pp p .

N p ( p N C O). O p , F .

A (O) p.

p j p.

T U.S. Sp C C p , .


3/98

3

INTRODUCTION

T A p p , B P W R C Pp 13 . P p p .

E pp , p, : . T , , , , p , . F , , , .

T j . pp p p p pp. A p p.

F, p p pp . F p, q pj .3 N q , q p. O- - p p q p p . M p p -,

. P , .

P , , p p p p, p p , z - , p p.

T F C L R, 5 p, p j . T p amicus curiae p , p -

2See, e.g., Alvin Rabushka, axation in Colonial America (2008) ( z,, B ); Jp D. R, J., ax Revolts in Historical Perspective, 3 Natl ax J. 7, (17) ( A 177.); K J. S, Te Right to Vote on axes, 96 Nw. U.L. Rev. 11, 11(1) ( A .).

3 Az (- q 1), A (- q 134), C (-q 17), C (- q 1), D (- q 1),F (- q p 171), K (- q ),L (- q 1), M (- q 14), Mpp (-q 17), M (- q 1), N (- q 1),O (- q 1), O (- q 1), S D (- q 1), W (- q 13).


4/98

4

, p-p , p q p . T p - pp amicus p .

What is a Tax?

INTRODUCTION

Shakespeare wrote, Tat which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. Te Bards words areequally true regarding the noxious odor o taxes. Tat which we call a tax by any other name smells just asbad.4

- E Sp M, -J W V Sp C App

H -? W ? C p .

Label Used Less Important that How the Charge Operates

A p . I q, A p . I -q, - . I,

p , j .

I , F pp $1 p p p , .5 Qzz p , p:

[A] . I . T [ Rp] . I . I I p Rp pp .

A , C 3 p , -

. T C pj q ,

4City o Clarksburg v. Grandeotto, Inc., 513 S.E. 177, 13 (W. V. 1) (M, J., ).

5 SeeJp H, Florida Rep. rying to Call Cigarette ax a Fee,ax Foundation ax Policy Blog, D. , ,p://.//f-p-----.

6 J F, Budget blues lead lawmakers to eye raising cigarette tax, Ocala Star-Banner, N. , , p://..//11/ARICLES/114/14/NEWS?=B________.


5/98

5

pp .7 T ppj, p p , p .

S p, j. N p p p p, .

Taxes Are Imposed for Revenue Purposes, While Fees Cover the

Cost of Providing a Service

, , p p , , p . W q , p - . T , p , purpose.

Taxes p p pp , p .

Fees p p pp p , p p.

Penalties p p pp pz , p p j p, .

S , Pigouvian taxes, j , p pp .

R , user taxes, p p . I pp , z .

T, , p pp. A p , pz p , p pp ( F 1).

7See, e.g., J R, Caliornia legislature passes budget with a $0.39 per gallon gas user ee,Auto Blog, D. 5,, p://..//1/5/--p-----3-p--/. See alsoG S, Gov.s about-ace on healthcare ees is more than a matter o semantics, Los Angeles imes, J. 15, 7(T Sz p p p .).


6/98

6

I -p 1 San Juan Cellular elephone Co. v. Public Service Com-mission o Puerto Rico, U.S. F C C App 3 p p p p . J ( U.S. SpC J) Sp B p :

C . Y, , z . . . . T p p , , z. I , , p . . . .

C [z ] ( f ) pz , p p, , p

p .

I , pz -p.

, p U.S. Sp C 1 p J Jp S, []- . . . pp . I , 5 p p .1 A , T C -

z , :I p pp -p ; p pp p . . . .11

A purpose p. M p p p , p( 1). (D N C) , .

A p, p (N C O) purpose - p ( 1).

8San Juan Cellular, 7 F. 5.

9Millard v. Roberts, U.S. 4, 43 (1), quoting1 S C. .

10Head Money Cases, 11 U.S. 5, 5 (14).

11 4 C, Te Law o axation, . 174 (4 . 14).


7/98

7

Figure 1: Flowchart For Determining Whether a Charge is a Tax

YES NO

Not a TaxWhat is the charges

primary purpose?

Raise

RevenueBehavior Recoup Costs

of Providing a

service to the

payer

Not a Tax(Penalty)

Not a Tax

(Fee)

Is revenue used for

general purposes or

dedicated purposes?

Tax

To determine, look how

closely related the payment of the

charge is to the benefts

to the user.

Is the charge imposed by government?

General Dedicated

Not relevant: whether the charge is voluntary.


8/98

8

Rhode Island

ImpliedSouth Carolina

South Dakota Implied

Tennessee

Texas

Utah Implied

Vermont

Virginia Washington

West Virginia Wisconsin

Wyoming Implied

District ofColumbia Implied

Source: Tax Foundation review of state statutes and case law.

State

Defines Tax as

Charge with

Primary Purpose

of RaisingRevenue

How the Charge

Operates is More

Important than theLabel Used

Alabama

Alaska Implied

Arizona Implied

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut Implied

Delaware Unclear

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois Implied

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas Implied

Kentucky Implied

Louisiana

Maine Implied

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan Implied

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska Not Considered

Nevada Implied

New Hampshire Implied

New Jersey Implied

New Mexico Implied

New York Implied

North Carolina Unclear Unclear

North Dakota

Ohio Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania Implied

Table 1:

States that Have Adopted Common Denition of Tax


9/98

9

Purpose of the Assessment is Used Internationally for

Distinguishing Taxes from Fees

T p p VC Dp R 11, p 17 .1 A 34

V C p p , p , () p .13 A p p p p :

Jp V C , p A 34 p .14

U N p 7 $1 p p N Y C.15

U S p p L C Z G L, . U.S. pp .1

Determining Purpose Can Sometimes Result in Close Cases

D pp p. H pp? Bp : (1) p , () p p p, (3) .17 V p j pp p.1

B , , p- p p .1 S , , p p. F p, p , p 12 V C Dp R . 34, Ap. 1, 11, 5 U.N..S. 5.

13Id.

14Id. (Jp: D 34() C, J. 7, 17).

15See, e.g., E S. R, Weiner Wants Scoaw Diplomats to Pay Up, New York imes, J. 1, 1, p://.../1/1/1/---p--p-p/.

16

See, e.g., Embassy road toll row continues, BBC News, M 14, , p://...///_///4773.; G W, Obama motorcades 120 congestion charge ne, he Sun, J. , 11, p://...//p//3744/B-O--1---..


18 A p p p p. See also Massachusetts v. United States,435 U.S. 444, 4-7 (17) ( pp , [] p . . . pp. . . .); Hedgepeth v. ennessee, 15 F.3 , 1 ( C. ) (San Juan Cellular ); ime Warner Entertainment-Advance/Newhouse Pship v. City o Lincoln, 3F.Spp. 11, 11-17 (D. N. 5) (p San Juan Cellular pp Bp ).



10/98

10

p , p . A V p pp p , $1,5 p p p pp .1

Tax Statute Ambiguity Should Be Resolved in Favor of theTaxpayer

I , p p, p p. T p p p p pp p .

C p p - p p p . H,

j pp -.

A p (O) p p ( ).

20Schneider ransport, Inc. v. Cattanach, 57 F. 1, 13 (7 C. 11), cert. denied, 455 U.S. (1).

21SeeJp H,More Roadblocks or Virginias ax on rac Oenses, ax Foundation ax PolicyBlog, A. 13, 7, p://.//-----.


11/98

11

State

Binding Authority

Holding That Ambiguity

in Tax Statutes is

Resolved in Favor of the

Taxpayer

Alabama

Alaska Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming District of Columbia

Source: Tax Foundation review of state statutes and case law.

Table 2:States that Resolve Statutory Ambiguity in Favor of the Taxpayer


12/98

12

Voluntariness is Not Material in the Tax/Fee Distinction

A / , p , p .

T p p p f p charge p underlying service. O p p , p . U , q ; p p p.

, , pp , .

P L R z p :

[] p . B , , p p .

W ( ) -

, j - . p j . (S 3.)

22 L R, axes, Fees, Assessments, Dues, and the Get What You Pay For Model o Local Government, 5Fla. L. Rev. 373, 41 (4).


13/98

13

Rhode Island Not Considered

South Carolina Not ConsideredSouth Dakota Not Considered

Tennessee Texas Not ConsideredUtah Not Considered

Vermont Not ConsideredVirginia Not Considered

Washington West Virginia Not Considered

Wisconsin Not ConsideredWyoming Not ConsideredDistrict of Columbia Not Considered

Source: Tax Foundation review of state case law.

Table 3:State Court Treatment of the Problematic Voluntariness Argument

State

Has State RejectedVoluntariness

Argument?

Alabama

(in one lower court

case)

Alaska Not Considered

Arizona

Arkansas Not ConsideredCalifornia

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware UnclearFlorida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho Illinois Not Considered

Indiana

Iowa Kansas Kentucky Not Considered

Louisiana Not Considered

Maine Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota Not ConsideredMississippi

Missouri Not ConsideredMontana Not Considered

Nebraska Not ConsideredNevada New Hampshire

New Jersey Not Considered

New Mexico Not Considered

New York Not Considered

North Carolina

North Dakota Not ConsideredOhio Not Considered

Oklahoma Not Considered

Oregon Not Considered

Pennsylvania


14/98

14

T U.S. Sp C .3

H, J , 1, U.S. Sp C NFIB v.Sebelius, P P A C A,pp O.4 T C q :

Anti-Injunction Act.W p pp. I , A-Ij A, pp, 14. T C A-Ij A pp p pp .

Medicaid Expansion. W q p M p M p p. T C 7 , M .

Commerce Clause.W p p p .T C 5 4 .

Taxing Clause. W p p p . T C 5 4 .

T C p p . T p p C C , F z p . E C, : j ; j p p C C; CJ J R q p p .

T C .S q p. T j

p p p, p- .5 T j - p (, pp , ) :

23See, e.g., United States v. New York, 315 U.S. 51, 515-1 (14) (B pp [ BpC] p p pp pp pp , .) ( ); United States v. La Franca, U.S. 5, 57 (131) (A p pp . . . .);

Millard v. Roberts, supra .

24National Federation o Independent Business v. Sebelius, 57 U.S. ____ (1), 13 S. C. 5 (U.S. J. ,1).

25Id. 4.

Implications of the U.S. Supreme Courts Health Care

Decision: A New Denition of Tax or a Hesitant,

Case-Specic Rule?


15/98

15

T p p p, p , , , .

N , , q.7 I ,, C q p.

T p IRS , p S not p , p. I , , C IRS p.3

B p -p C p p, . I , p p, -, .

T p j. T C p p p p z .31

Dp pp C , Rp C . I, ,3 pp ,33 ,34 z ,35 C p p [] p.3

T C pp p p p . T C p pj- q, p j NFIB v. Sebelius .

26Id. 35-3.

27Id. 3.

28Id. ..29Id. (p ).

30Id. ..

31Id. 43.

32Id. (p p. 33).

33Id. 35.

34Id. 3 & . .

35Id. 44.36Id. 3.


16/98

16

ALABAMA

Denition of Tax

I Lightwave echnologies, LLC v. Escambia County, A Sp C -p - -- .37 T : (1) ; () - p; (3) p p j.3

T q (1) , ; () p pp --; (3) p , p -- .3

T q : Densmore v. JeersonCounty St. Clair County Home Builders Association v. City o Pell City.4Densmore p pp p . . . [] . . . p

37

See Lightwave ech., LLC v. Escambia County, 4 S. 17, 1 (A. 1).38Id.; see also Board o Water & Sewer Commissioners o the City o Mobile v. Yarbrough , S. 51, 55 (A. 15)( , pp p, pp p ).

39See id. 1.

40See Densmore v. Jeerson County, 13 S. 44, 53 (A. 1) (p (1) pp, () p , (3) p C p q); St. Clair County Home Builders Assn v. City o Pell City, 1 S. 3 , 15 (A. 1)( p- (1) pp, () p p, (3) p p pp).

Defnition o Tax: I p pp ,

Defnition o Tax: H p p

Defnition o Tax: V ( )

A p


17/98

17

ALABAMA

.41

Voluntariness

O A pp - , .4 T : T p , , p . A p p .43

Ambiguity Resolved in Favor of the TaxpayerA p.44

41Densmore, 13 S. 54 (Board o Water & Sewer Commissioners o the City o Mobile v. Yarbrough , S.51, 55 (A. 15)).

42One Stop, Inc. v. State Dept. o Revenue, 14 S. 7, , 5 (A. C. App. 1), cert. denied, (A. J. 1, 1)(N. 1771).

43 Id.

44See e.g., Ex Parte HealthSouth Corp., 7 S. 745, 75 (A. 7) ( .);Ala. Farm Bureau Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. v. City o Hartselle, 4 S. 11, 13 (A. 14)(W p , p p p.);Ashe Carson Co. v. State, 35 S. 3, 3 (A. 13) (T q, q , .).


18/98

18

Denition of Tax

I State v. Alex, Sp C A q [] p .45 A - p [] p p

p.4

VoluntarinessN A .

Ambiguity Resolved in Favor of the Taxpayer

A pp p.47

45State v. Alex, 4 P. 3, (A 1) (q Blacks Law Dictionary 1 (4 . 1).

46 Alaska Stat. 37.1.5().

47See Union Oil Co. o Cal. v. Dept o Revenue, 5 P. 1, 5 (A 177) ([W] q , p, p.).

ALASKA


Defnition o Tax: H p p Ip

Defnition o Tax: V N C

A p


19/98

19

Denition of Tax

IMay v. McNally, Az Sp C 1 p - p .4 Ap San Juan Cellular-, p [] z : (1) p ; () pp p; (3) p ppp, p p p.4

T (1) z , () p , (3) p pppp .5 T p Az Sp C, .51

Voluntariness

A Az Sp C San Juan Cellular p May, .5 I Stewart v. Verde River Irrigation & Power Dis-

48May v. McNally, 55 P.3 7, 773-74 (Az. ) ( ).49May, 55 P.3 773-74 (qBidart Bros. v. Cal. Apple Commn, 73 F.3 5, 31 ( C.1) (San JuanCellular el. Co. v. Pub. Serv. Commn o Puerto Rico, 7 F. 3 (1 C.1))).

50May, 55 P.3 774.

51See, e.g., Barry v. School Dist. No. 210 (Phoenix Union High School) o Maricopa County,4 P. 34, 35-3 (Az.1) (A pp pp p . A p p pp pp p.); Stewart v. VerdeRiver Irrigation & Power Dist., P. 3, 334-35 (Az. 137) ( pp p p pp p , p p p p ).

52See Stewart v. Verde River Irrigation & Power Dist., P. 3, 335 (Az. 137).

ARIZONA



Defnition o Tax: V

A p


20/98

20

trict, , p p , , p p , p p .53


Az p.54

53Stewart, P. 335.

54See, e.g., Ebasco Serv., Inc. v. Ariz. State ax Commn, 45 P. 71, 7 (Az. 1) (T C p , p .); Corp. Commn v. Equitable Lie Assurance Socy, 3 P. 3, 33 (Az. 151) (I , p .); Gen.Petroleum Corp. v. Smith, 157 P. 35, 35 (Az. 145) ( . . . p p.).

ARIZONA


21/98

21

ARKANSAS

Denition of Tax

I City o Marion v. Baioni, A Sp C p .55 T p A 5 z j .57 T [] p pp, p p p.5 T p (1) q; () p; (3) p

pp p.5

T p pj. T q.1

55See City o Marion v. Baioni, 5 S.W. 1 (A. 13).

56See Holman v. City o Dierks, 33 S.W. 3, 33 (A. 15) ( $4. p pp p ); City o North Little Rock v. Graham, 47 S.W. 45, 453 (A. 13) ( $3. p p , p , p p Holman).

57 See City o Marion, 5 S.W. -3 (p C, F, M, O,O, W).

58Id. .59Id. 3.

60Id. (R p p , p p p, p p q, i the use o the money is limited tomeeting the cost o that extension.) (p ).

61See, e.g., Rose v. Arkansas State Plant Bd., 13 S.W.3 7, 14 (A. 5) (q Baioni Harris pp p pp, p p); Harris v. City o Little Rock, 4 S.W.3 14, 1 (A. 1) (A , q pp p, p .); Barnhart v. Cityo Fayetteville, S.W. 53, 544 (A. 15) ( pp




A p


22/98

22

T , .

Voluntariness

N A .


A pp p.3

p p).

62Baioni, 5 S.W. (citing See alsoCity o Hot Springs v. Vapors Teatre Restaurant, Inc., 7 S.W. 1(1) andRainwater v. Haynes, 4 S.W. 54 (1)).

63See, e.g.,Miss. River ransmission Corp. v. Weiss, 5 S.W.3 7, 73 (A. ) (A , p.); Barclay v. First Paris HoldingCo., 4 S.W.3 4, 5 (A. 1) (A p.).

ARKANSAS


23/98

23

CALIFORNIA

Denition of Tax

I Sinclair Paint Co. v. State Board o Equalization, C Sp C p, - , p p p.4 T p - p p j - q .

A C p, C Sp C p

, pp pp p .5 W - , p pp p p. A, 1531 exclusively p , pp.7

T Sinclair p: (1) p [()], pp; ()p , p p [ p ]; (3) , p p p [

64See Sinclair Paint Co. v. State Bd. oEqz, 37 P. 135, 1354 (C. 17).65See Sinclair Paint Co. v. State Bd. oEqz, 37 P. 135, 1354 (C. 17) (I , p pp, p p .); see also Bay Area Cellularelephone Co. v. City o Union City, 75 C.Rp.3 3, 44 (C. C. App. ) (qSinclair ).

66See id. 135 ([I] p pp , p .).

67Id. (p ).

68 C ; p . SeeCal. Const.. XIII C, 1 (G p pp.Sp p p pp, p p pp, p .).



Defnition o Tax: V

A p


24/98

24

p pp].

C p pp p .7

Voluntariness

I Sinclair, C Sp C j - .71 T C , j p .7


C p.73

69Sinclair, 37 P. 1354-55 (Evans v. City o SanJ, 4 C. Rp. 1, (C. C. App. 1);Shapell Industries, Inc. v. Governing Board o the Milpitas Unied School District, 1 C. Rp. 1, 35 (C. C.

App. 11); Pennell v. City o San Jose, 71 P. 1111, 111 (C. 1)).

70 Cal. Govt Code 006 (W 1) ; see also Bay Area Cellular elephone Co. v. City o Union City, 75 C.Rp.3 3, 44 (C. C. App. ) (Sp p p p, j p . Sp p p p , pp.) (quotingKern County Farm Bureau v. County o Kern, 3 C.

Rp. 1, 14 (C. C. App. 13).71Sinclair, 37 P. 1354.

72 See, e.g., Cal. Farm Bureau Fedn v. State Water Res. Control Bd., 47 P.3 11, 13 (C. 11) (M p p p p p. B p .); see alsoBay AreaCellular elephone Co. v. City o Union City, 75 C. Rp. 3 3, 47 (C. C. App. ) (j p p p p); Kern County Farm Bureau v. County o Kern , 3 C. Rp. 1, 1 (C. C. App. 13) ([] q pp .).

73See, e.g., Cal. Motor ransp. Co. v. State Bd. o Equal. , 17 P. 745, 74 (C. 14) (I , p . (quotingEdison Cal. Stores, Inc. v. McColgan,13 P. 1, 1 (C. 147))).

CALIFORNIA


25/98

25

COLORADO

Denition of Tax

C p pp : p p p p. 74 p pp , C .75

Voluntariness

T C Sp C p j Bloom v. City o Fort Collins.7T : [] , , p.77

74See e.g., Barber v. Ritter, 1 P.3 3, 4 (C. ) ( p , p p pp p

p.); Bloom v. City o Fort Collins, 74 P. 34, 3 (C. 1) (U , p p , p pp pp pp p .); Zelinger v. City and County oDenver, 74 P. 135, 135 (C. 1) (A p ); Trity Rent-A-Car System, Inc. v. City and County o Denver, 33 P. 5, 55 (C. App.1) (A p p p p p, p p.).

75See Barber v. Ritter, 1 P.3 3, 4-5 (C. ) ( , ); Rancho Colorado, Inc. v. City oBroomeld, 5 P. 5, 3 (C. 17) ( p p pp).

76Bloom v. City o Fort Collins, 74 P. 34, 31-11 (C. 1).

77Id.



Defnition o Tax: V

A p


26/98

26


C p.7

78See, e.g., ransponder Corp. o Denver, Inc. v. Prop. ax Admr, 1 P. 4, 54 (C. 14) (A - C p , p . . . . A p.(qAssociated Dry Goods v. City o Arvada, 53 P.1375, 137 (C. 17))).

COLORADO


27/98

27



Defnition o Tax: V

A p

Denition of Tax

C , p : p,7 .

Voluntariness

I p , Gagne v. City o Hartord, -p : (1) ; () ; (3) p p.1 T, , p .


C p.

79

See Bell Atlantic Nynex Mobile, Inc. v. Dept. o Pub. Utility Control, 1 WL 145, * (C. Sp. C. M 7,1).

80See Gagne v. City o Hartord, 14 WL 141. (C. Sp. J. 4, 14).

81See id. *4 (I O p, pp j pp . . . . I pp , p p C. T, p p p .).

82See, e.g., Sullivan v. Union & New Haven rust Co., 15 A. 174, 17 (C. 1) ([A] p p. ); Sec. Mills, Inc. v. own o Norwich, 143 A. 451, 453 (C.15) (W , p.); Connelly v. WaterburyNatl Bank, 7 A. 45, 4 (C. 15) (E , p.).

CONNECTICUT


28/98

28

DELAWARE

Denition of Tax

I ri-State Amusement, Inc. v. State ax Dept., D Sp C -p p -p - p p. 3 B , -, p , p . T pp 14 j .4

VoluntarinessD . H, 1p p j [] p , p , 1 M .5


D p.

83See ri-State Amusement, Inc. v. State ax Dept., 54 A. , (D. 1) (p -p , , -).

84Conard v. State, 1 A. 11, 14-5 (D. Sp. 14).

85 See oll Bros., Inc. v. Gen. Accident Ins. Co., 1 WL 1441, *5 (D. Sp. D. 7, 1) (MichiganEmployment Sec. Commission v. Patt, 144 N.W. 3, 5 (M. C. App. 1)).

86See Arbern-Wilmington, Inc. v. Dir. o Revenue, 5 A. 135, 13 (D. 11) (I , p.).


Defnition o Tax: H p p U

Defnition o Tax: V U

A p


29/98

29

FLORIDA



Defnition o Tax: V

A p

Denition of Tax

I Collier County v. State, F Sp C pp pp pp p , ; ; p; ; p ; p .7 T p q p p pp; , p pp.

I , F p . Sp p pp p . W p , p p. F p, City o Gainesville v. State, F Sp C p p , pp p p ( p ). T p , p p p.

I City o Gainesville, F Sp C p p .1 T -p :

87See Collier County v. State, 733 S. 11, 11 (F. 1).

88Id. 117, citing City o Boca Raton v. State, 55 S. 5, (F. 1).

89See City o Gainesville v. State, 3 S. 13 (F. 3).

90See id.

91See id. 145; see also Okeechobee Util. Auth. v. Kampgrounds o Am., Inc., S. 445, 447 (F. 4) (pp).


30/98

30

(1) ;() p ;(3) ;(4) , pp ;(5) - ;() p p ;

(7) ; () z .

T pp q p ; . . . .

Voluntariness

A , , , p .3


F p p.4

92See id. 144, citing7C A.J., Special or Local Assessments , 31-3 ().

93See City o Gainesville v. State, 3 S. 13, 145 (F. 3) (N ; . R, p .);see alsoCity o Clearwater v. Sch. Bd. o Pinellas County, 5 S. 151, 157 (F. D. C. App. 5) (I

p [] p, . T p.).

94See, e.g., Lee v. Walgreen Drug Stores Co., 1 S. 314, 31 (F. 14) (W z , , A p S.).

FLORIDA


31/98

31

GEORGIA

Denition of Tax

I Bellsouth elecommunications, Inc. v. Cobb County, G Sp C p p p qp --.5 T :T . A p p , p p p. T , p-pp p,p p .7

Voluntariness

V . F p, Luke v. Georgia Department oNatural Resources, [p]p , p- US F pp .


G p p.

95See Bellsouth elecommunications, Inc. v. Cobb County, 5 S.E. 74 (G. 3).

96See Bellsouth elecommunications, 5 S.E. 75 (qRichmond County Business Assn v. Richmond County, 15 S.E.3, 5 (G. 1)); see also Gunby v. Yates, 1 S.E. 54, 55 (G. 15) (A p pp p pp, p p p .); Hadley v. City o Atlanta, 5 S.E. 74 (G. C. App. 1) (T p p - , p p p p p p .).

97 5 S.E. 75.

98See Luke v. Ga. Dept o Natural Res., 513 S.E. 7, 7 (G. 1).

99See State v. Camp, S.E. , 1-17 (G. 13) (S , z . . . .).



Defnition o Tax: V

A p


32/98

32

Denition of Tax

H p - pp p.1 I , , -p San Juan Cellular.11

I , State v. Medeiros, $5 p , .1 T (1) pp p ; () p ; (3)

pp .13

I , Hawaii Insurance Council v. Lingle, H p . T H Sp C Medeiros pp q .14 T pp San Juan Cellular BlacksLaw Dictionary p San Juan Cellular.15 T p SanJuan Cellular :

T p p j .I pp , p,

100See State v. Medeiros, 73 P. 73, 741-45 (H. 1).

101See Hawaii Insurers Council v. Lingle, 1 P.3 54, 57 (H. ).

102See Medeiros, 73 P. 741-45.

103See id.

104 Lingle, 1 P.3 575.

105Id. 573 ([O] p : A p p, , , pp p . . . . [ San Juan Cellular] T p p , , z. I , , p .) (q Blacks Law Dictionary 14 ( . 4); San Juan Cellular el. Co. v.Public Serv. Commn o Puerto Rico, 7 F. 3, 5 (1 C. 1).

HAWAII



Defnition o Tax: V

A p


33/98

33

p p. O, pp , p, p p p - p.1

T : (1) - ; () p p p ; (3) .17

T p

p .1

Voluntariness

H p j p , Lingle: W Emerson College p , []q p Emerson College, M Sp J C - Emerson College p p .1


H p p.11

106Lingle, 1 P. 573 (San Juan Cellular, 7 F. 5).

107See Lingle, 1 P.3 57.

108See Lingle, 1 P.3 574, citing Medeiros, 73 P. 741 (quoting Stewarts Pharmacies v. Fase, 43 H. 131, 15

WL 11 *1 (H. . 15)).109Hawaii Insurers Council v. Lingle, 1 P.3 54, 574 (H. ); see also State v. Medeiros, 73 P. 73, 74 (H.1) (C, pp - q pp p. T, p.).

110See, e.g.,Matter o Hawaiian el. Co., P. 33, 3 (H. 1) (I p p p pp p p . . . I p p, p, p , p p p . I z. (qGould v. Gould, 45 U.S. 151, 153(117))).

HAWAII


34/98

34

IDAHO

Denition of Tax

I BHA Investments, Inc. v. State, I Sp C p q , [ ] pp pp .111 P . I Kootenai CountyProperty Association v. Kootenai County, p , p q , p .11 IAlpert v. Boise Water Corporation, 3 p p p p

.113

Voluntariness

I Kootenai County, j , :

A , [pp], p p p . H, , p p, z p , q p .114


I p.115

111BHA Investments, Inc. v. State, 3 P.3 474, 47-7 (I 3).

112Kootenai County Property Assn v. Kootenai County, 7 P. 553, 553 (I 1).

113Alpert v. Boise Water Corp., 75 P. , 37 (I 1).

114Kootenai County Prop. Assn, 7 P. 55-57.

115See, e.g., Dept o Empt v. Diamond Intl Corp., 5 P. 7, 73 (I 174) ( p p.).



Defnition o Tax: V

A p


35/98

35

ILLINOIS

Denition of Tax

I Crocker v. Finley, I Sp C $5 , . T : [C] p p . O , , p p, .11

A p pp Crocker ,117 I

Sp C pp Crocker .11 I , .11

Voluntariness

N I .


I p p.1

116 Crocker v. Finley, 45 N.E. 134, 134-5 (I. 14) (q Blacks Law Dictionary 553 (5 . 17)).

117

See, e.g.,Arangold Corp. v. Zehnder, 77 N.E. 7, 7 (I. 3) (Crocker , in dicta [] Crocker .); Browning v. Corbett, 734 P. 13, 133 (Az. App. 1) (T [ Crocker] p p j , I .).Arangold Crocker , , .

118See People v. Jones, 1 N.E. 7, 7 (I. ) (Crockerpp pp ).

119Jones, 1 N.E. 5 (quoting Crocker, 45 N.E. 134).

120See, e.g., Ingersoll Milling Mach. Co. v. Dept o Revenue, N.E. 747, 751 (I. 15) ( p p, p.).




A p


36/98

36

INDIANA

Denition of Tax

I City o Gary v. Indiana Bell elephone Company, Inc., I Sp C p -- p G p, . . . .11 T : A p p; p , j z. O , p p p p- p-p .1

VoluntarinessA , I p .13


I p.14

121City o Gary v. Indiana Bell elephone Co., Inc., 73 N.E. 14, 15 (I. ). T .

122City o Gary, 73 N.E. 15 (I. ); see also Ennis v. State Highway Commission, 1 N.E. 7, 3 (I.15) ( pp , .

p pp p , pp p.); Hochstedler v. St. Joseph County Solid Waste Management Dist., 77 N.E. 1, 15 (I.C. App. ) (G, p pp , p p.) (qBellSouth elecomm., Inc. v. City o Orangeburg, 5 S.E. 4, (S.C. 1), ). See, e.g., Anderson v. Indiana Dept. o State Revenue, 75 N.E. 57 (I. .C. 1) ( M C F (MCF) , p p p j z ).

123See id.; see alsoHochstedler v. St. Joseph County Solid Waste Management Dist. , 77 N.E. 1, 15 (I. C. App. ).([A] p p p p p p .) (Ace Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Indianapolis Airport Authority, 1 N.E. 114, 11 (I. C. App. 13)).

124See Dept o State Revenue v. Crown Dev. Co. , 1 N.E. 4, 4 (I. 15) (I p.).



Defnition o Tax: V

A p


37/98

37

IOWA

Denition of Tax

I City o Hawarden v. US West Communications, Inc., I Sp C pp p.15 T p p p p p pp .1 T pp :

I p p q p

, p p. I j p p p , , .17

T , . . . .1

125City o Hawarden v. US W. Communications, Inc., 5 N.W. 54, 57 (I 1) (p Diginet,Inc. v. Western Union AS, Inc., [] [ ] j . . . . . . . . . .) (qDiginet, Inc. v. Western Union AS, Inc., 5 F. 13, 13 (7 C. 1)).

126See Home Builders Assn o Greater Des Moines v. City o West Des Moines, 44 N.W. 33, 347 (I ) ( p p , p, , p p p ); seealso In re Shurtzs Will, 4 N.W. 55, 5 (I 151) (A p p .).

127Hawarden, 5 N.W. 5.

128 Id.



Defnition o Tax: V

A p


38/98

38

IOWA

Voluntariness

I Kragnes v. City o Des Moines, I Sp C j . T j p.1


I p.13

129See Kragnes v. City o Des Moines, 714 N.W. 3, 4 (I ).

130See Naumann v. Iowa Prop. Assessment Appeal Bd., 71 N.W. 5, (I 1) ([W] , p.).


39/98

39

KANSAS

Denition of Tax

I Citizens Utility Ratepayer Board. v. State Corporation Commission o the State o Kansas, KSp C j p , : Tp pp , ; p.131T p p p p p.13

S, Executive Aircrat Consulting, Inc. v. City o Newton, pp p p p.133 T pp K .134

Voluntariness

I Newton, K Sp C [p] - , , p . 135

131Citizens Utility Ratepayer Bd. v. State Corp. Commn o State o Kan., 5 P. 5, 7 (K. 1).

132

Id.133SeeExecutive Aircrat Consulting, Inc. v. City o Newton, 45 P. 57, (K. 13) (A p p , , p p p. A , p p , , p.).

134See, e.g., G, Kansas, L.L.C. v. Riley County Register o Deeds, P.3 , 5 (K. 1) ( p pp pp p ); Busby, Inc. v. Kansas Dept. o Agriculture, P.3 441, 44 (K. C.

App. 1) ( p p p ). But see Fidelity Inv. Co. v. Hale, 51 P. 13,144 (K. 173) ( q p --L A , , % ).

135Executive Aircrat Consulting, Inc. v. City o Newton, 45 P. 57, (K. 13).



Defnition o Tax: V

A p


40/98

40


K p.13

136 See In re City o Wichita, 5 P.3 33, 343 (K. ) (O , p [] . (qWater Dist. No. 1,988, P. 7, (K.C. App. 1))).

KANSAS


41/98

41

KENTUCKY

Denition of Tax

I 15, Krumpelman v. Louisville & Jeerson County Metropolitan Sewer District,K - , C App, p .137 T , p pp .13 T - pp.13 T , p, p p - , p p

, . O , p.14

Voluntariness

N K .

137

See Krumpelman v. Louisville & Jeerson County Metropolitan Sewer District, 314 S.W. 557, 51 (K. 15).138Id. 51(I p, , p . T pp p pp, p pp pj, pp , p pp.).

139See Com. v. Louisville Atlantis Community/Adapt, Inc., 71 S.W. 1, 15 (K. App. 17) (A p pp , p .) (qLongRun Baptist Assn v. Sewer Dist., 775 S.W. 5, 5 (K. C. App. 1)); Kentucky River Authority v. City o Danville, 3S.W. 374, 37 (K. C. App. 1) ( KR , p pp , ).

140Dickson v. Jeerson Co. Bd. o Educ., 5 S.W. 7, 75 (K. 14).




A p


42/98

42


K p.141

141See, e.g., George v. Scent, 34 S.W. 74, 7 (K. 11) (I L p , j p p.);Martin v. F. H. Bee Shows, 113 S.W. 44, 451 (K.

App. 13) (R , . . . : I , z.).

KENTUCKY


43/98

43

LOUISIANA




A p

Denition of Tax

IAudubon Insurance Co. v. Bernard, L Sp C p p p .14 T p pp , p p p , p .143

T p Saety Net or Abused Persons v. Segura, : [A]

p p .144 T : T , , , p .145

Voluntariness

N L .


L p.14

142Audubon Ins. Co. v. Bernard, 434 S. 17, 174 (L. 13).

143

Id. (Acorn v. City o New Orleans, 47 S. 15, 1 (L. 11)). See also GO Petroleum Corp. v. State ex rel.Dept. o Revenue and axation, 45 S. 55, 51 (L. C. App. 1 C. 3) (I p ppj , p p , , p p. I , p p p .).

144See Saety Net or Abused Persons v. Segura, S. 13, 141 (L. 17).

145Id.

146See, e.g., United Gas Corp. v. Fontenot, 1 S. 77, 7 (L. 11) ([] p p . . . .); State v. StandardOil Co. o La., 17 S. 1, 5 (L. 13) (I - p p p S p. ).


44/98

44

MAINE

Denition of Tax

I Butler v. Supreme Judicial Court, M Sp J C p j , pp .147 T , , p pp : (1) p ; () pp p;14 (3) p p.14

Voluntariness

T M Sp C ,: O p p

147See Butler v. Supreme Judicial Court, 11 A. 7, (M. 1) (B , pp p. I , p, z p p p p .) (qStrater v. own o York, 541 A. 3,

3 (M. 1)); see also Strater v. own o York, 541 A. 3, 3 (M. 1) ( pp , , );Maine Milk Producers, Inc. v.Commissioner o Agriculture, Food and Rural Resources, 43 A. 113, 11 (M. 14) (T p p p p .); Board o Overseers o the Bar v. Lee, 4 A. ,14 (M. 1) (A . . . p pp p .

W , , p pp , p pp p p p , p p, .).

148See Butler, 11 A. ([] [] [] pp p.).

149Id.



Defnition o Tax: V

A p


45/98

45

MAINE

z .15 I Butler, [] j .151


M [] .15 A p, .153 F, M S p p. 154

150Id.

151Id.

152Blue Yonder, LLC v. State ax Assessor, 17 A.3 7, 71 (M. 11).

153Id.

154Community elecomm. Corp. v. State ax Assessor, 4 A. 44, 4 (M. 1).


46/98

46

MARYLAND

Denition of Tax

I Eastern Diversied Properties, Inc. v. Montgomery County, M , C App, p p pp.155 T : (1) p p p p, () p pp p , (3) p p , (4) p .15 Tp p , pp, []

p , [] [] p.157 T pp .15

Voluntariness

A , M .

155See Eastern Diversied Properties, Inc. v. Montgomery County, 57 A. 5 (M. 1). See also Maryland TeatricalCorp. v. Brennan, 4 A. 11, 13-14 (M. 14) ( q pp , p pp ); Workmens Comp. Commnv. Property & Cas. Ins. Guar. Corp., 57 A. 33, 35 (M. 1); Campbell v. City o Annapolis, 44 A. 73, 741 (M.11);Montgomery County v. Maryland Sot Drink Assn, 377 A. 4, 45 (M. 177);American Natl Bldg. & Loan Assnv. City o Baltimore, 4 A. 3, 7- (M. 1);Anne Arundel County v. English, 35 A. 135, 13-3 (M. 143).

156See Eastern Diversied Properties, 57 A. 54-55.

157Id.

158Id. (quoting Campbell v. City o Annapolis, 44 A. 73, 741 (M. 11)).



Defnition o Tax: V

A p


47/98

47

MARYLAND


M p p.15

159See, e.g., State Dept o Assessments & axation v. Consol. Coal Sales Co., 55 A. 117, 17 (M. 4) ([A] p . . . .); Comptroller o reasury v. Clydes o Chevy Chase, 33 A. 114,11 (M. 3) (W p p , C z p p.).


48/98

48

MASSACHUSETTS



Defnition o Tax: V

A p

Denition of Tax

I Silva v. City o Attleboro, M Sp J C p , : I , . F, , p p p .1 T p - : (1) [] p , p p p z ;11 () p p p.1

Voluntariness

I Emerson College v. City o Boston, , Silva - p .13 O j .14

160Silva v. City o Attleboro, N.E. 7, 75 (M. ) (qEmerson College v. City o Boston, 4 N.E. 1, 115(M. 14)).

161Id. (qEmerson College, 4 N.E. 115).

162Id.; see also Nuclear Metals, Inc. v. Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Bd., 5 N.E. 53, 5 (M. 15) (T p .); Southview Co-

op. Housing Corp. v. Rent Control Bd. o Cambridge, 4 N.E. 7, 7 (M. 15) ( p p , ).

163See Silva, N.E. 7 (T Emerson College [ ] , pp. N .).

164See, e.g., Bertone v. Department o Public Utils., 53 N.E. , 3 (M. 1) (F p j.); Southview Coop. Hous. Corp. v. Rent Control Bd. o Cambridge, 4 N.E. 7,75 (M. 15) ( p ); Baker v. Department o Envtl.Protection, 57 N.E. 4, 4 (M. App. 15) (T q p , ); Berry v. Danvers, 13N.E. 1, 111 . (M. App. 13) ( , , p , pz p p .).


49/98

49

MASSACHUSETTS


M p p.15

165See Prudential Ins. Co. o Am. v. Commr o Revenue, 7 N.E. 1, 11 (M. 1) ( , p.).


50/98

50

MICHIGAN



Defnition o Tax: V

A p

Denition of Tax

I Bolt v. City o Lansing, M Sp C p .1 T : G, , p . A , , . E pp p p pp . R , , , pp p

p .17 F , : (1) pp - pp, () pp , (3) .1

Voluntariness

T M .1 H, - pp .17

166See Bolt v. City o Lansing, 57 N.W. 4, (M. 1). T H A, Mich.

Const. . IX, 31, p j pp.

167Bolt, 57 N.W. 4 (M. 1) ( ).

168Id. ( ). A, -p pp : (1) p ; () p p pp; (3)

pp . Bolt, 57 N.W. 7.

169See, e.g., Bolt v. City o Lansing, 57 N.W. 4, 7-73 (M. 1); Wheeler v. Shelby Charter wp., 7 N.W.1, 1 (M. C. App. 5);Mapleview Estates, Inc. v. City o Brown City, 71 N.W. 57, 574 (M. C. App.3).

170See, e.g.,A & E Parking v. Detroit Metro. Wayne County Airport Auth., 73 N.W. 3, 7 (M. C. App. 4)


51/98

51

MICHIGAN


M p.171

(Bolt pp pp p -- ); Lapeer County Abstract& itle Co. v. Lapeer County Register o Deeds, 1 N.W. 11, 1 (M. C. App. 4) (Bolts pp).

171See, e.g.,Mich. Bell el. Co. v. Dept o reasury, 51 N.W. , 11 (M. 14) (M, p.); In re Dodge Bros., 17 N.W. 777, 77 (M. 1)(S p, , [], p.).


52/98

52

MINNESOTA

Denition of Tax

I Country Joe, Inc. v. City o Eagan, M Sp C , p p, .17T [] pp - - p q . 173 T p ; p -

; pj p j p. 174

T p : (1) p , () p pj p.175

Voluntariness

N M .

172See Country Joe, Inc. v. City o Eagan, 5 N.W. 1 (M. 17).

173Id. .

174See id.

175See Country Joe, Inc. v. City o Eagan, 5 N.W. 1, (M. 17) ( p , p , pj p, j , p ). See also State v. Labos Direct Serv., 44 N.W. 3, 7 (M. 15) ( pp pp p p); Barron v. Cityo Minneapolis, 4 N.W. , 4 (M. 14) ( [] p, p, ).




A p


53/98

53

MINNESOTA


M p.17

176See, e.g.,McLane Minn., Inc. v. Commr o Revenue, 773 N.W. , (M. ) (W p , p. (qCharles

W. Sexton Co. v. Hateld, 11 N.W. 574, 5 (M. 1))).


54/98

54

MISSISSIPPI

Denition of Tax

I City o Ocean Springs v. Homebuilders Association, Mpp Sp C p p , p - p .177 T : T [ ] p pp p p.17

Voluntariness

N Mpp . W City o Ocean Springsp, in dicta j .17


Mpp p.1

177See City o Ocean Springs v. Homebuilders Assn, 3 S. 44, 55-5, 1 (M. ).

178Id. (q M. A G. Op. 1-45 (1)).

179See City o Ocean Springs,3 S. 55 ( H Spz, axes vs. Fees: A Curious Conusion, 3 Gz. L. R.335, 353 (3)) (qCovell v. City oS, 5 P. 34, 37 (15) (Pp , p p .)).

180See, e.g., State ex rel. Knox v. Union ank Car Co., 11 S. 31, 31 (M. 1) (A , p.);Millerv. Ill. Cent. R. Co., 111 S. 55, 5 (M. 17) (D p.).




A p


55/98

55

MISSOURI




A p

Denition of Tax

I President Riverboat Casino-Missouri, Inc. v. Missouri Gaming Commission, M SpC -p pp .11 T z , Legett v. Missouri State Lie Insurance, :

pp p p

pp p . p pp p . F p p p ppp j q p p p p p -.1

T -p : (1) p;() p ; (3) p p p; (4) p ; (5)

p .13

T j .14

181See President Riverboat Casino-Missouri, Inc. v. Missouri Gaming Commn, 13 S.W.3 35 (M. ).

182Id. 3 (Leggett v. Missouri State Lie Ins. Co., 34 S.W. 33, 75 (M. 1) ( ).

183See Keller v. Marion County Ambulance Dist., S.W. 34-5 .1 (M. 11).

184President Riverboat Casino, 13 S.W.3 3, citing State ex rel. Wyatt v. Ashbrook, 55 S.W. - (M. 1).


56/98

56

Voluntariness

N M .


M p.15

185See, e.g., United Air Lines, Inc. v. State ax Commn, 377 S.W. 444, 44 (M. 14) ([W] , q p.);A.P. Green FireBrick Co. v. Mo. State ax Commn, 77 S.W. 544, 54 (M. 155) ( p .).

MISSOURI


57/98

57

MONTANA




A p

Denition of Tax

T M Sp C Brackman v.Kruse, : W [] p pp . . . p- , .1 A, [] p pp . . . p - q p p , .17 F , .1

Voluntariness

N M .


M p.1

186See Brackman v. Kruse, 1 M. 1, 14 (M. 14)

187

Id. I , M Sp C . See Monarch Mining Co. v.State Highway Commn, 7 P. 73, 741 (M. 154) ( p pp, p ; pp, p, p . I ; ppp. T, p p [] .) (q 51 A.J., , 17, p. 4).

188See State v. Police Court o City o Bozeman, 1 P. 1, 1 (N. 13).

189See, e.g., W. Energy Co. v. State Dept o Revenue, P. 77, 7 (M. 1) (W p p , p.); State ex rel.

Anderson v. State Bd. o Equalization, 31 P. 1, 4 (M. 157) (I - M p , p.).


58/98

58

NEBRASKA


Defnition o Tax: H p p N C


A p

Denition of Tax

N z , p . R p p pp .1

I 11 , N Sp C p p pp , p , p p, p . . ..11 T 17 , p pp , p pp, j p, p j.1 I 151 (), dicta p .13

W N pp pp, N Sp C p.14

190See, e.g.,Anthony, Inc. v. City o Omaha, --- N.W. ----, 1 WL 175 (N. M 1, 1) ( pp p pp ); Kiplinger v. Nebraska Dept. o Natural Resources,3 N.W. (N. 11) ( pp p p pp ).

191Pleuler v. State, 1 N.W. 41, 47 (N. 11).

192German-American Fire Ins. Co. v. City o Minden, 71 N.W. 5, 7 (N. 17).

193Michelson v. City o Grand Island, 4 N.W. 7, 774-75 (N. 151), citing Laverents v. City o Cheyenne, 17 P.77, 5 (W. 15); City o Edwardsville v. Jenkins, 33 N.E. 5 (I. 141); Payne v. City o Racine, 5 N.W. 437(W. 135); City o Harrison v. Braswell, 14 S.W. 1 (A. 14); State v. City o Miami, 7 S. 11 (F. 14);Sharp v. Hall, 11 P. 7 (O. 147); Grim v. Village o Lewisville, N.E. (O App. 135).

194Gartner v. Hume, N.W. 5, 77 (N. App. 4).


59/98

59

NEBRASKA

Voluntariness

N N .


N p.15

195 See Foote Clinic, Inc. v. City o Hastings, 5 N.W. 1, 4 (N. 1) (W p p p p p , p p.).


60/98

60

NEVADA



Defnition o Tax: V

A p

Denition of Tax

I Southern Nevada Lie Underwriters Association v. City o Las Vegas, Sp C N pp .1 T - Clean Water Coalition v. Te M Resort, LLC. I , pp -.17

I Clean Water Coalition, p - State v. Medeiros.1T, :

(1) pp p , () p , (3) pp .1

T , , (1) p pp p; () p ppj; (3) pp j p. H,

196See Southern Nevada Lie Underwriters Assn v. City o Las Vegas, 35 P. 757, 75 (N. 15) ( p pp p

).197See Clean Water Coalition v. Te M Resort, LLC, 55 P.3 47, 5 (N. 11) (Douglas Co. Contractors v. DouglasCo., P. 53, 5 (N. 1) ([W] pp A j, pp , .)).

198See Clean WaterC, 55 P.3 5 ([] , H Sp C Medeirosp M Sp J C Emerson College, z (1) pp p , () p , (3) pp .Medeiros, 73 P. 74. I , .) (qState v. Medeiros, 73 P. 73, 741 (1)).

199Clean WaterC, 55 P.3 57.

200Id.


61/98

61

NEVADA

p , .1 T pp p , .

Voluntariness

T N Sp C p, dicta, pp , [] p p p j z, p pp p

p p .3


N p p.4

201Id. 5.

202Id. 57.

203See Clean Water Coalition v. Te M Resort, LLC, 55 P.3 47, 5 (N. 11) (U.S. v. Huntington, W.Va., F. 71, 74 (4 C. 13)).

204See, e.g., State, Dept o axation v. Visual Comm., Inc., 3 P. 145, 147 (N. 1) ( p. (qCashman Photo v. Nev. Gaming Commn,53 P. 15, (1 N. 175))); Cashman Photo v. Nev. Gaming Commn, 53 P. 15, 1 (N. 175) (

p.).


62/98

62

NEW HAMPSHIRE



Defnition o Tax: V

A p

Denition of Tax

I American Automobile Association v. State, N Hp Sp Cp .5

F, [] p . . . [] pp p p .

S, , p p p p .7 q, pp p .F, p . H, pp p, .1

F, pp ppp, pp j p .11

205See American Auto. Assn. v. State, 1 A. 44, 47-4 (N.H. 1). T - Horner v. Governor, 51 A. 1, 1-3 (N.H. ) ( ).206American Auto. Assn., 1 A. 47 (qOpinion o the Justices, 37 A. 7, 7 (N.H. 177); Laconia v.Gordon, 1 A. 71, 73 (N.H. 1)).

207American Auto. Assn., 1 A. 47 (qOpinion o the Justices, 37 A. 7, 7 (N.H. 177).

208Laconia v. Gordon, 1 A. 71, 73 (N.H. 1) (Marine Corps League v. Benoit, 7 A. 513, 51 (N.H.151).

209Laconia, 1 A. 73 (Opinion o the Justices, 37 A. 7, 7 (N.H. 177)).

210See Hooksett Drive-In Teatre, Inc. v. Hooksett, A. 14, 1 (N.H. 17).

211See Laconia, 1 A. 73 (Opinion o the Justices, 37 A. 7, 7 (N.H. 177); Coltin Company v.Manchester Savings Bank, 17 A. , 1 (N.H. 14)).


63/98

63

NEW HAMPSHIRE

Voluntariness

T N Hp Sp C p p p Horner v. Governor .1 T pp j pp .13


N Hp p.14

212See Horner v. Governor, 51 A. 1, 13 (N.H. ).

213Id. 13 (T p p p p p , p . T p NHp pp p. W p , S C, .).

214See, e.g., First Berkshire Bus. rust v. Commr, N.H. Dept o Revenue Admin., 13 A.3 3, 35 (N.H. 1) (W p.); Pheasant Lane Realty rust v. Cityo Nashua, 7 A. 73, 7 (N.H. 1) (E , p.(qAppeal o John Denman, 41 A.14, 17 (N.H. 1)));Appeal o Denman, 41 A. 14, 17 (N.H. 1) (O ,

p.).


64/98

64

NEW JERSEY




A p

Denition of Tax

T N J Sp C p pp Bellingtonv. ownship o East Windsor.15 T :

T p : pp; , p . B .1

T Holmdel Builders Association v. ownship o Holmdel Daniels v.Borough o Point Pleasant.17 T p p pp p .1

215Bellington v. East Windsor p., 11 A. , 71-7 (N.J. 155).

216

Id. (Becker v. Pickersgill, 143 A. 5, 1 (N.J. 1)).217See Holmdel Builders Assn v. ownship o Holmdel, 53 A. 77, 3 (N.J. 1) (I p pp , . . . . I, , p pp p p, p .); Daniels v. Borough o Point Pleasant, 1 A.5, 7 (N.J. 157) (q Bellington p p pp ).

218See BD-1996 NPC 1 L.L.C. v. 350 Warren L.P.,74 A. 114, 11 (N.J. 1) ([] pp p . (Bellington, 11 A. 7; Daniels, 1 A. 7). But see Resolution rust Corp. v.Lanzaro, 5 A. , (N.J. 15) (W pp , , p p p p p .).


65/98

65

NEW JERSEY

Voluntariness

N N J .


N J p.1

219See, e.g., Hudson County Chamber o Commerce v. City o Jersey City, 7 A. , 7 (N.J. 1) ([A] p S.); Fedders Fin. Corp. v. Dir., Div. oaxation, 47 A. 741, 745 (N.J. 14) ([W] p p , p , p.); Kingsley v.Hawthorne Fabrics, Inc., 17 A. 73, 77 (N.J. 14) (I p p, p, p , p p p . I , z. (qGould v. Gould, 45 U.S. 151, 153 (117))).


66/98

66

NEW MEXICO




A p

Denition of Tax

T N M Sp C El Paso ElectricCompany v. New Mexico Public Regulation Commission. , pp , : A p . I , p .1

T pp New Mexico Mining Association v. New Mexico Mining Commission p

q : - p q.

Voluntariness

N N M .


N M p.3

220See El Paso Elec. Co. v. New Mexico Public Regulation Comn, 4 P.3 443 (N.M. 1).

221Id. 44 (N.M. Mining Assn v. N.M. Mining Commn, 4 P. 741, 747 (N.M. C. App. 1)). But seeApodaca v. Wilson, 55 P. 7, (N.M. 174) ( ,p ).

222N.M. Mining Assn v. N.M. Mining Commn, 4 P. 741, 747 (N.M. C. App. 1)) (National Cable elevisionAssn v. FCC, 554 F. 14, 11 (D.C. C. 17)).

223See Molycorp, Inc. v. State Corp. Commn, 4 P. 11, 111 (N.M. 11) ([A] pp .).


67/98

67

NEW YORK




A p

Denition of Tax

T N Y C App, American Sugar Rening Company o New York v. WarterrontCommission o New York, . T p:

T , , . A p pp p , p p , p pp pp .4

A, p N Y p : p p 5 p p .

224 American Sugar Re. Co. o New York v. Waterront Commn o New York Harbor, 43 N.E. 57, 55 (N.Y. 1).

225See, e.g., Am.Ins. Assn v. Lewis, 4 N.E. , 33-34 (N.Y. 1) ( pp p N Y p p ); Suolk County Bldrs. Assn, Inc. v. Suolk County,3 N.E. 133, 137 (N.Y. 17) ( p p p p p p p);

Jewish Reconstructionist Synagogue o N. Shore v. Inc. Vill. o Roslyn Harbor, 35 N.E. 115, 15 (N.Y. 17) ( p pp z p p p ); City o New York v. Second Ave. R. Co., 3 N.Y. 1, 73-74 (N.Y. 15)( $5 C N Y p pp ); own Bd. o owno Poughkeepsie, on Behal o Arlington Water Dist. v. City o Poughkeepsie, 55 N.Y.S. 54, 55 (N.Y. App. D. 14)( pp p q ).

226See City o Bualo v. Stevenson, 1 N.E. 7, (N.Y. 113) (T $5 . . . . [] pp [] . . . p p p p p p. T p , p p ,

p p .).


68/98

68

NEW YORK

Voluntariness

N Y p .7 H, pp . I New York University v. American Book Co., C App p C N Y p : (1) f z , () . I p q .3


N Y p p.31

227See, e.g., Kessler v. Hevesi, 4 N.Y.S. 5, 5 (N.Y. App. D. 7) (U , , p p pp .); New York el. Co. v.A, 13 N.Y.S. 3, 5 (N.Y. App. D. 14) ([F] [] z p p benet .) (qJewish Reconstructionist

Synagogue o N. Shore v. Incorporated Vil. o Roslyn Harbor,35 N.E. 115, 117 (N.Y. 17) (p )).228See New York Univ. v. Am. Book Co., N.E. 1, (N.Y. 11); own Bd. o own o Poughkeepsie, on Behal o ArlingtonWater Dist. v. City o Poughkeepsie, 55 N.Y.S. 54, 554 (N.Y. App. D. 14) (T , p p q j p, p p pp p.) (New York University v. Am. Book. Co., N.E. 1, (N.Y. 11)).

229New York Univ., N.E. .

230Id.

231See, e.g., Suolk County Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn v. Bragalini, 15 N.E. 14, 1 (N.Y. 15) (I q p , , p p . . . , p, . . . .).


69/98

69

NORTH CAROLINA


U

Defnition o Tax: H p p U

Defnition o Tax: V

A p

Denition of Tax

T N C Sp C p pp .3 O , p .33 I Hart v. Board o Commission-ers o Burke County, : [] , , pp .34

T N C C App North Carolina Associationo ABC Boards v. Hunt, p q - .35 T p , - , .3

H, pp j Heatherly v. State N C Sp C, pp p .37 T pp p

232

N.C. pk. Auth. v. Pine Island, Inc., 143 S.E. 31, 35 (N.C. 15) ( j p ).

233 See State v. Davis, 3 S.E. , 75 (N.C. 177).

234Hart v. Board o Commrs o Burke County, 134 S.E. 43, 44 (N.C. 1) ( ); see also State ex rel.Utilities Comn v. Carolina Util. Customers Assn, 44 S.E. 33, 347 (N.C. 14) ( levied upon the general citizenry (p)).

235See North Carolina Assn o ABC Boards v. Hunt, 33 S.E. 3, 4-5 (N.C. C. App. 15).

236See id.

237Heatherly v. State, 7 S.E. 5 (N.C. ) ( ).


70/98

70

NORTH CAROLINA

pp .

Voluntariness

N C p ,3 p N CSp C pp.3


N C p.4

238See, e.g., North Carolina Assn o ABC Boards v. Hunt, 33 S.E. 3, 4-5 (N.C. C. App. 15) (A pp p q p; p , p .); N.C. pk.

Auth. v. Pine Island, Inc., 143 S.E. 31, 35 (N.C. 15) ( . A p p; , p .).

239See, e.g., Heatherly v. State, 5 S.E. 11, 17-1 (N.C. App. ) ([I] p p ; [] z. R, p , pp z .A , , N C p pp; p .).

240See, e.g.,Appeal o Clayton-Marcus Co., 1 S.E. 1, (N.C. 174) (I , S p.);Watson Indus. v. Shaw, S.E. 55, 511 (N.C. 15) ( S p.).


71/98

71

NORTH DAKOTA




A p

Denition of Tax

I Scott v. Donnelly, p pp p N D p, N D Sp C .41

T p ppp. I p pp , ; , p pp , .4

T p p State v. Kromarek [] p pp p p p p .43

Voluntariness

N D . H, ND Sp C, Menz v. Coyle, .44 T : [] p pp -p p p .45

241See Scott v. Donnelly, 133 N.W. 41 (N.D. 15).

242Scott, 133 N.W. 43 ( : [] . I . S pp p p .).

243State v. Kromarek, 5 N.W. 713, 715 (N.D. 15); see also Menz v. Coyle, 117 N.W. , 7 (N.D. 1) ( , p p p pp.).

244Menz, 117 N.W. 7.

245Id. (qState v. Kromarek, 5 N.W. 713, 715 (N.D. 15)).


72/98

72

NORTH DAKOTA


N D p.4

246 See, e.g., W. Gas Res., Inc. v. Heitkamp, 4 N.W. , 73 (N.D. 1) ([W] p q p . . . .); Rocky Mountain Oil & Gas Assn v. Conrad, 45N.W. 7, 1 (N.D. 17) ([I] p , p.); Great N. Ry. Co. v. Flaten, 5 N.W.75, 7 (N.D. 174) (W p , p.); Standard Oil Co. o Ind. v.State ax Comr, N.W. 447, 44 (N.D. 141) (I , p. (qUnited States v. Merriam, 3 U.S. 17, 1 (1))); Goldberg v. Gray,7 N.W. 14, 17 (N.D. 141) (T p p pp p z . . . .W q .).


73/98

73

OHIO




A p

Denition of Tax

I Drees Co. v. Hamilton ownship, O Sp C pp Withrow p p , , .47 T Withrow pp (1) p , () p p p pp, (3) p p, (4) j p p.4

B Drees(1) pp , () use [p p ], (3) p p p p p, (4) p , .4 T p Withrow, p .5

T Withrow p p [] . W .51

T F amicus curiae Drees p

p.

247Drees Co. v. Hamilton ownship, --- N.E. ----, 1 WL 1571 *4 (O M 31, 1), citing State ex rel.Petroleum Underground Storage ank Release Comp. Bd. v. Withrow, 57 N.E. 75 (11).

248See id.

249See id. *5.

250See Withrow, 57 N.E. 71 (I p p .).

251Id., citing Withrow, 57 N.E. 7 .5.


74/98

74

OHIO

Voluntariness

N O .


O p.5

252See Zimmer v. Hagerman, 1 N.E. 54, 5 (O 15) ([W] p p.).


75/98

75

OKLAHOMA




A p

Denition of Tax

I City o Shawnee v. Reid Bros. Plumbing Co., O Sp C p p p p:

W p p p p, p , p,

pp p . T p p. W .53

I , p q - -p .54

I 5 , p,

, i.e., , .55

Voluntariness

N O .

253City o Shawnee v. Reid Bros. Plumbing Co., 7 P. 77, 7 (O. 14).254In re Assessment o Personal Property axes Against Missouri Gas Energy, Div. o Southern Union Co., For ax Years 1998,1999, and 2000, 34 P.3 3, 5 (O. ).

255win Hills Gol & Country Club, Inc. v. own o Forest Park, 13 P.3 5, (O. 5).


76/98

76

OKLAHOMA


O p.5

256See W. Auto Supply Co. v. Okla. ax Commn, 3 P. 414, 4 (O. 15) (W , , p.).


77/98

77

OREGON




A p

Denition of Tax

IAutomobile Club o Oregon v. State, O Sp C p q .57 T :

I , p p, , , ,, , p, , , , , , pp, . A - p pp p

pp; p - q p p .5

T . . . p p . . . .5

Voluntariness

N O .


T O Sp C j p .

257Automobile Club o Oregon v. State, 4 P. 74 (O. 1).

258Id. 7 (citing King v. Portland, 3 P. (1), ad14 U.S. 1 (1)) ( ).

259Id. 7.

260Parr v. Dept o Revenue, 553 P. 151, 154 .4 (O. 17).


78/98

78

PENNSYLVANIA



Defnition o Tax: V ( )

A p

Denition of Tax

I National Biscuit Co. v. City o Philadelphia, P Sp C p p .1 T p pp , pp p p . . . .

T p , , S , , p Flynn v.

Horst, .3

W National Biscuit , P C C (P pp ) pp .4

Voluntariness

O P pp , pp San Juan Cellular, z p p -and is paid by choice.5 B p z , , P

261National Biscuit Co. v. City o Philadelphia, A. 1 (P. 153).262Id. 17.

263Id. 17, citing Flynn v. Horst, 51 A. 54, 5.

264See, e.g., Selective Way Ins. Co. v. Com., 1 A.3 5, 5 (P C. 1), citing Woodward v. City o Philadelphia, 3A. 17, 17 (P. 13) ( p p p p pp p pp, p ); Tompson v. City o Altoona Code

Appeals Bd., 34 A. 13, 133 (P. C. 7) ([I] p , .); City oPhiladelphia v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commn, 7 A. 1, 13 (P. C. 1) (San Juan Cellular).

265City o Philadelphia v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commn, 7 A. 1, 13 (P. C. 1) (p ).


79/98

79

PENNSYLVANIA

.


P p.

266See, e.g., Ne. Pa. Imaging Ctr. v. Pennsylvania, 35 A. 75, 75 (P. 11) ( C, pp p .); In re Husbands Estate, 175 A. 53, 5 (P. 134) (I p, z j p .).


80/98

80

RHODE ISLAND




A p

Denition of Tax

I Kent County Water Authority v. State Dept. o Health, R I Sp C p - .7 T - p - p p. A p , State v. Foster, [] p . . . p j , , pp, pp p p; , j , pp p.

T p p , p .

Voluntariness

N R I .


R I p p.7

267Kent County Water Authority v. State Dept. o Health , 73 A. 113 (R.I. 1).

268Id. 1135.

269State v. Foster, 4 A. 33, 35-3 (R.I. 1).

270See Bassett v. DeRentis, 44 A. 73, 75 (R.I. 1) ([] p.).


81/98

81

SOUTH CAROLINA

Denition of Tax

I Hagley Homeowners Assn, Inc. v. Hagley Water, Sewer, and Fire Authority, S CSp C p .71 T [], p pp p pp . . . . U , p p p / .7

T q p p

.73

Voluntariness

N S C .


S C p.74

271Hagley Homeowners Assn, Inc. v. Hagley Water, Sewer, and Fire Authority, 45 S.E. (S.C. 17).

272Id. , citing Robinson v. Richland County Council, 35 S.E. 3 (17).

273Brown v. County o Horry, 417 S.E. 55, 57 (S.C. 1), citing Powell v. Chapman, 17 S.E. 7 (173);Jacksonv. Breeland, S.E. 1 (115).

274See, e.g., Hay v. Leonard, 4 S.E. 53, 5 (S.C. 14) ([] - q p . . . . (qFuller v. S.C.axCommn, 11 S.E. 47, 41 (S.C. 14))).




A p


82/98

82

SOUTH DAKOTA




A p

Denition of Tax

I Valandra v. Viedt, S D Sp C 15 p 5 p .75 T p pp p p p .7 B 5 p pp p , , p, .77

A p , p p .

Voluntariness

N S D .


S D p.7

275Valandra v. Viedt, 5 N.W. 51 (S.D. 177).

276Id. 51, citing State ex. Rel. Attorney General v. Wisconsin Contractors, N.W. 3 (W. 13).

277Id. 51.

278See Sioux Valley Hosp. Assn v. State, 51 N.W. 334, 33 (S.D. 14) (A p.).


83/98

83

TENNESSEE



Defnition o Tax: V

A p

Denition of Tax

I Saturn Corp. v. Johnson, C App z p z .7 T C App p p p- p. I p p p p , . I, , p pp p p p p , .

F, Sp C p .1 T C App [] , , , pp p.

Voluntariness

I , Sp C j : A -, p pp p. C p .3

279Saturn Corp. v. Johnson, 3 S.W.3 15, 1-1 (. C. App. 7).280Id. 1 ( q ) (citing Memphis Natural Gas Co. v. McCanless, 14 S.W. 47, 43 (.14);Memphis Fire Ins. Co. v. idwell, 45 S.W. 1, (. 173); Grays Disposal Co., Inc. v. Metro. Govt, 1S.W.3 14, 15 (. C. App. ).

281State v. Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry., 137 S.W. 7, (. 14).

282Saturn Corp., 3 S.W.3 1.

283Grays Disposal Co. v. Metro. Govt o Nashville, 31 S.W.3 34, 35 (. 1).


84/98

84

TENNESSEE


p.4

284 See, e.g., White v. Roden Elec. Supply Co., Inc., 53 S.W. 34, 34 (. 17) ([] p .);Memphis Peabody Corp. v.

MacFarland, 35 S.W. 4, 43 (. 13) (W , p.).


85/98

85

TEXAS




A p

Denition of Tax

T , H. Rouw Co. v. exas Citrus Commission, p .5 T Sp C pp - z , , ppp p , p, .

Voluntariness

N .


p p.7

285H. Rouw Co. v. exas Citrus Commn, 47 S.W. 31 (. 15).

286Id. 34, citing Hoefing v. City o San Antonio, S.W. 5 (. 1); City o Fort Worth v. Gul Rening Co., 3S.W. 1 (. 135); Royall v. State o Virginia, 11 U.S. 57 (1); Dayton-Goose Creek Ry. Co. v. United States, 7 F.7 (D.C. . 13); exas Co. v. Brown, F. 577 (D.C. G. 1).

287See, e.g., Bullock v. Statistical abulating Corp., 54 S.W. 1, 1 (. 177) (A pp p . . . .); ex. Unempt Comp. Commn v. Bass, 151 S.W. 57, 57 (.141) ([W] q p p p p , p .); Franklin Fire Ins. Co. v. Hall, 47 S.W. , 3 (. 13) (T , , .).


86/98

86

UTAH




A p

Denition of Tax

I ooele Associates Ltd. Partnership v. ooele City Corp., U Sp C p p . T pp, p p p p p p . [H] p pp.

A p p ,

p q p j pp .1

T p p , p .

Voluntariness

N U .

Ambiguity Resolved in Favor of the TaxpayerU p p.

288ooele Associates Ltd. Partnership v. ooele City Corp., 47 P.3 371 (U 11).

289Id. 37, citing V-1 Oil Co. v. Utah State ax Commn, 4 P. , 11 (U 1), revd on other grounds on rehearg,

4 P. (17).

290Weber Basin Home Builders Assn v. Roy City, 47 P. , 7 (U 171).

291V-1 Oil Co., 4 P. 11-1, citing Banberry Dev. Corp. v. South Jordan City, 31 P. , 5 (U 11).

292See Ivory Homes, Inc. v. Utah State ax Commn , P.3 751, 75- (U 11) (W

p p.).


87/98

87

VERMONT




A p

Denition of Tax

I In re Eddys Estate, V Sp C .5p .3 Cp p p , p . I , , , p .4

T : T q : W

p pp ? S , ; p pp , .5

Voluntariness

N V .


V p.

293In re Eddys Estate, 3 A. 53 (V. 177).

294Id. 533, citing State v. Caplan, 135 A. 75 (V. 17); State v. Hoyt, 4 A. 73 (V. 1); Berryman v. Bowers, 5

P. 31 (Az. 1); Smith v. Carbon County, 3 P. 5 (U 13); 1 . C, , 33 (4 . 14); 71A.J., S L , 17.

295State v. Caplan, 135 A. 75, 7 (V. 17).

296See, e.g., Portland Pipe Line Corp. v. Morrison, 11A. 7, 71 (V. 155) ([A]

p p p p.); First Natl Bank o Boston v. Harvey, 1 A. 14, 1 (V. 14) ([D] p p.).


88/98

88

VIRGINIA




A p

Denition of Tax

IMarshall v. NVA, V Sp C - .7 W p V , p . T [] ppp , , . T pp NVA ; , p.

VoluntarinessN V .


V .3

297Marshall v. Northern Virginia ransp. Authority, 57 S.E. 71 (V. ).

298Marshall, 57 S.E. 71, 77-7 (citing idewater Assn o Homebuilders, Inc. v. City o Virginia Beach, 4 S.E. 53,57 (V. 11); County o Loudoun v. Parker, 13 S.E. 5, (V. 14); Board o Supervisors v. American railer Co., S.E. 115, 11-1 (V. 151).

299Id. 7-.

300See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Carter, S.E. 3, 373 (V. 15) ([S] p . . . .); Commonwealth v. Hutzler, 7 S.E. 775, 77 (V. 11) ([W]

j , p . (qSupervisors v. allant, 3 S.E. 47, 4 (V.1)).


89/98

89

WASHINGTON



Defnition o Tax: V

A p

Denition of Tax

I Covell v. City o Seattle, W Sp C $ p p .31 R p , - : (1) [] p pp , , ; () z pp; (3) p p p p.3 F

, p p , .33

T Covell Hillis Homes, Inc. v. Snohomish County, W Sp C p z C .34 W , p .

Voluntariness

S , j S ,

S pp , pp p pp.35

301Covell v. City o Seattle, 5 P. 34 (W. 15).

302Id. 37.

303Id. 33-31.

304Hillis Homes, Inc. v. Snohomish County, 5 P. 13, 14-5 (W. 1).

305Id. 33.


90/98

90


W p.3

306See, e.g., Ski Acres, Inc. v. Kittitas County, 7 P. 1, 13 (W. 1) (I , p p.).

WASHINGTON


91/98

91

WEST VIRGINIA



Defnition o Tax: V N

A p

Denition of Tax

I Cooper v. City o Charleston, W V Sp C App $1-p- p C C .37R p , [] p pp , p pp p p p .3

T Cooper p p p . A p , .3 T $.5 p p $1 p p p . W p $.5 -p, . E , W V p .31 B , U.S. C App F C H, W V .311

T F C p

307Cooper v. City o Charleston, 4 S.E. 71 (W. V. 5).308Id. 7.

309Id. (citing Huntington v. Bacon, 473 S.E. 743 (W. V. 1)).

310See, e.g., City o Clarksburg v. Grandeotto, Inc., 513 S.E. 177, 13 (W. V. 1) (M, J., ) (I f p j q , , p , , p , , , p, p , . A p U S . A, - p , :.).

311United States v. City o Huntington, F. 71, 74 (4 C. 13).


92/98

92

WEST VIRGINIA

z p .31

Voluntariness

N W V .


W V p.313

312Id. (citing City o Fairmont v. Pitrolo Pontiac-Cadillac, 3 S.E. 57 (W. V. 13)).

313See Consolidation Coal Co. v. Krupica, 54 S.E. 13, 1 (W.V. 17) ([] p .).


93/98

93

WISCONSIN




A p

Denition of Tax

I p p -, W Sp C State v. Jackman.314 T [] p pp p p p p .315 T z p , p, , 4p p pp.31 T j

p , .317

W , [] p p p p.31

T p . T p [] , , p .31

Voluntariness

N W .

314 State v. Jackman, 11 N.W. 4 (W. 173).

315 Id. 45.

316 Id. 4-7.

317 Id.

318 W. S. .().

319 City o Milwaukee v. Milwaukee & Suburban ransport Corp., 4 N.W. 54, 5 (W. 15).


94/98

94


W p .3

320See Midland Fin. Corp. v. Wis. Dept o Revenue, 341 N.W. 37, 4 (W. 13) (I , .).

WISCONSIN


95/98

95

WYOMING




A p

Denition of Tax

I Ford v. City o Riverton, W Sp C p .31 T j , [] p p p - p p, P E MQ Te Law o Municipal Corporations.MQ p:

T p p pp p p , p p . A p , , p .3

T W Sp C, , p p p p p . T - p[ ] , .33 I , p p .

Voluntariness

N W .

321Ford v. City o Riverton, 1 P. 3, 3 (W. 1).

3221 E MQ, Te Law o Municipal Corporations 44., (3 . 14).

323Western Auto ransports v. City o Cheyenne, 1 P. 5, 55 (W. 14).


96/98

96


W p.34

324See, e.g., Basin Elec. Power Co-op. v. Bowen, 7 P. 53, 5 (W. 1) ( p .); Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v.State, 1 P. , 5 (W. 1) (I z.).

WYOMING


97/98

97

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA




A p

Denition of Tax

I District o Columbia v. Eastern rans-Waste o Maryland, Inc., , D.C. C App pp . I pp, , p pp, .35 App , pp. T pp San Juan Cellular-p p p j -p.3

T p p .

Voluntariness

N D C .


T D C p.

37

325District o Columbia v. Eastern rans-Waste o Maryland, Inc., 75 A. 1, 1 (D.C. ).

326Id. 11-1.

327See, e.g., Sch. St. Assocs. Ltd. v. District o Columbia, 74 A. 7, 5 (D.C. 1) ([W] p . . . . (qDistrict o Columbiav. Acme Reporting Co., 53 A. 7, 71 (D.C. 17))); District o Columbia v. Acme Reporting Co., 53 A. 7,71 (D.C. 17) ([] p, . (q 3A Sutherland, Statutes and Statutory Construction .1 (C.S, 4 . 1))).


98/98

98

How state governments use taxes and fees

Documents

Transcript of How state governments use taxes and fees