Case Title: Williams v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1990-03-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P. 40
as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports.
Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
Court, 111 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05602 of any errors in order
that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                          Nos. 88-309 and 89-042


Norman Williams and                          Supreme Court
Susan Levine
                                             On Appeal from
     v.                                      Washington Superior Court

State of Vermont and                         March Term, 1990
William H. Conway, Jr.,
Vermont Commissioner of
Motor Vehicles


Valerie M. Quinn and
James Woodard

     v.

State of Vermont and
William H. Conway, Jr.,
Vermont Commissioner of
Motor Vehicles


Alden T. Bryan, J.

O'Neill and Crawford and Norman Williams, pro se, Burlington, for
  plaintiffs-appellants Williams and Levine

Mary P. Kehoe of Gear and Davis, Inc., Burlington, for plaintiff-
  appellant Woodard

Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, and Thomas R. Viall and Andrew M.
  Eschen, Assistant Attorneys General, Montpelier, for defendants-appellees


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J. and Gibson, J., and Wolchik, D.J., Katz, Supr. J.,
          and Fisher, D.J., Specially Assigned


     KATZ, Supr. J., Specially Assigned.   Plaintiffs filed suit in
Washington Superior Court to secure refunds of taxes paid to the Department
of Motor Vehicles upon first registering automobiles in Vermont.  The
superior court dismissed plaintiffs' claims.  We affirm.

                                I.  Record
     In 1980, Norman Williams purchased and registered a Volkswagen Dasher
in Illinois, his state of residency at the time, and paid the five percent
Illinois sales tax.  In 1981, he moved to Vermont with his car.  When he
subsequently applied to register the vehicle with the Vermont Department of
Motor Vehicles, he was required to pay Vermont's four percent use tax
pursuant to 32 V.S.A. { 8903(b).  Believing the tax was unconstitutional, as
it did not apply to Vermont residents who purchased and paid a sales tax on
vehicles in reciprocating states (including Illinois), see { 8911(9), (FN1)
Williams brought suit in federal court under 42 U.S.C. { 1983 to enjoin
enforcement.  That suit was dismissed on the authority of the Tax Injunction
Act, 28 U.S.C. { 1341.  Williams then paid the tax and initiated an
administrative proceeding, pursuant to 32 V.S.A. { 8914, for a refund.  The
Motor Vehicles Department felt constrained to assume the constitutionality
of the tax scheme and denied relief.
     Williams then filed the present action in superior court, serving the
State and Commissioner Conway, pursuant to V.R.C.P. 4(d)(2), by serving the
Attorney General.  Susan Levine joined the action in an amended complaint.
Levine, like Williams, had moved to Vermont from another state, bringing her
car with her.  She had purchased a Chrysler Horizon in New York and paid the
seven percent New York sales tax.  When she registered the car in Vermont,
she was required to pay the state use tax.
     In their complaint, Williams and Levine requested refunds of the
respective use taxes as well as a declaratory judgment that the tax scheme
violates several provisions of the United States Constitution: article I,
section 8, clause 3 (Commerce Clause); article IV, section 2 (Privileges and
Immunities); and the Fourteenth Amendment (Equal Protection and Privileges
and Immunities Clauses).  Although now in state court, the complaint rests
on the federal cause of action provided by 42 U.S.C. { 1983.
     The State filed a motion to dismiss, asserting the constitutionality of
the statute.  The motion was granted and Williams and Levine appealed to
this Court, which affirmed on the strength of our opinion in Leverson v.
Conway, 144 Vt. 523,