Case Title: Bigelow v. Department of Taxes

Citation: 163 Vt 33, 652 A.2d 985

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1994-10-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
BIGELOW_V_DEPT_OF_TAXES.93-515; 163 Vt 33; 652 A.2d 985

[Filed 14-Oct-1994]

[Motion for Reargument Denied 10-Nov-1994]


       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, 109 State Street, Montpelier,
       Vermont 05609-0801 of any errors in order that corrections may be
       made before this opinion goes to press.

                               No. 93-515


       Ogden Bigelow, Jr.,                      Supreme Court
         d/b/a Topknits
                                                On Appeal from
            v.
                                                Washington Superior Court

       Vermont Department of Taxes              March Term, 1994



       Alan W. Cheever, J.

       Andrew H. Neisner, Barre, for plaintiff-appellant

       Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, and Mary L. Bachman, Special
       Assistant Attorney General, Montpelier, for defendant-appellee



       PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


        GIBSON, J.   Taxpayer Bigelow appeals from a superior court
       order, which affirmed the decision of the Commissioner of the
       Vermont Department of Taxes ("Department") assessing a use tax
       against a vessel taxpayer purchased in Rhode Island and brought to
       Vermont.  We affirm.

       Taxpayer, a Connecticut resident, purchased a 36-foot motorboat
       named "Topknits" in Rhode Island in May 1989.  He did not pay Rhode
       Island sales tax at the time of purchase, claiming an exemption as
       a boat broker/dealer.  Taxpayer sailed Topknits from Rhode Island
       to Vermont, arriving in Charlotte, Vermont on July 17 or 18, 1989.
       He rented a mooring at 

       

       Bay Point Marina for the summer of 1989, and
       sailed Topknits around both the Vermont and New York portions of
       Lake Champlain throughout the summer.  He did not register Topknits
       with the Vermont Department of Motor Vehicles, although dealer
       registration certificates are available under 23 V.S.A.  3305(b).
       Instead, taxpayer possessed United States Coast Guard documentation
       indicating that the boat's primary use was recreation.

        Taxpayer removed Topknits from Lake Champlain sometime in
       November 1989.  That same month, the Department assessed a use tax
       against Topknits under 32 V.S.A.  9773(1) for $3,371.20.  Taxpayer
       appealed the assessment, and a hearing before the Commissioner was
       held on January 25, 1990.

        At the hearing, taxpayer challenged the Department's authority
       to levy the tax, but not the amount or the method of assessment.
       He claimed that (1) he was not subject to tax under 32 V.S.A. 
       9773(1) because he did not purchase the boat at retail, (2) the
       Department could not prove that he used the boat in Vermont for at
       least thirty days, the statutory period giving rise to liability
       under 32 V.S.A.  9744(2), and (3) the tax violated the
       Constitution's prohibition against tonnage taxes, and the equal
       protection and privileges and immunities clauses.  Taxpayer argued
       that he was a Vermont boat dealer and that Topknits was his only
       inventory.  The Commissioner found that taxpayer purchased the boat
       at retail, and that he used it in Vermont for at least thirty days.
       The Commissioner also rejected taxpayer's constitutional claims. 
       Taxpayer took an appeal pursuant to 32 V.S.A.  9817 to the
       Washington Superior Court, which affirmed the decision.

        Taxpayer raises several issues on appeal.  Taxpayer argues that
       the Commissioner erred in finding that taxpayer purchased the boat
       at retail and that Topknits had been in Vermont 

       

       waters for at least thirty days.  Taxpayer also raises two 
       constitutional challenges to the tax.  First, he contends that 
       32 V.S.A.  9773 is a tonnage tax prohibited by Article I,  10, 
       clause 3 of the United States Constitution.  Second, taxpayer argues 
       that the tax violates the commerce clause.  U.S. Const. art. I,  8, 
       cl. 3.  We find no error or constitutional infirmity, and therefore 
       affirm.
                                          I.

        Taxpayer argues that the Commissioner erred in finding (1) that
       he purchased the boat at retail, and (2) that he used Topknits in
       Vermont waters for at least thirty days.  On appeal, we will not
       set aside an administrative agency's findings unless clearly
       erroneous.  In re DeCato Bros., Inc., 149 Vt. 493, 497,