Title: Saia Motor Freight Lines, Inc. v. Agerton

State: louisiana

Issuer: Louisiana Supreme Court

Document:

275 So. 2d 393 (1973) SAIA MOTOR FREIGHT LINES, INC. v. E. Lee AGERTON, Collector of Revenue for the State of Louisiana. Nos. 52370, 52371. Supreme Court of Louisiana. March 26, 1973. Duval, Arceneaux, Lewis & Gaidry, Stanwood R. Duval, Jr., Houma, for plaintiff-appellant. Whit M. Cook, II, Baton Rouge, for defendant-appellee. *394 SANDERS, Chief Justice. Saia Motor Freight Lines, Inc., in these consolidated cases, challenges the constitutionality of LSA-R.S. 47:462(A)(5), a statute creating tax classifications applicable to certain carriers. The thrust of the challenge is that insofar as the statute fixes rate classifications by domicile it is arbitrary and unreasonable. We do not agree. R.S. 47:462(A)(5) defines "Class 5" vehicles which are, in related statutes, entitled to lower tax rates than those imposed upon similar commercial vehicles. Prior to 1958, the statute provided as follows: As the statute then read, therefore, the key to the classification was use-area. The paragraph was amended in that year so as to read as follows: The effect of the amendment was to limit the class entitled to lower rates not only by use-area but also by domicile. It is this limitation which, in Saia's view, is unconstitutionally arbitrary. The trial court, however, rejected this view and upheld the statute. Saia has appealed directly to this court pursuant to Article 7, Section 10 of the Louisiana Constitution. There is little controversy concerning the constitutional principles governing the case. Quoting Corpus Juris Secundum, we stated in Interstate Oil Pipe Line Co. v. Guilbeau, 217 La. 160, 46 So. 2d 113 (1950): *395 "To be unconstitutional, the classification must be manifestly arbitrary and unreasonable, and not possibly so. Since taxation is so largely a question of policy, the legislature possesses the largest measure of discretion in these matters; and the courts will not declare a tax statute void as a violation of the equal protection guaranty so long as the classification or selection made by it is based on a reason, even though in their opinion the reason is a poor one and the statute itself is unjust, the test being good faith, not wisdom." We further noted in the same case: The trial court found that urban domicile was, within this framework, a reasonable basis for classification, holding that businesses domiciled in urban areas were subject to a broad spectrum of heavier taxes (ad valorum taxes, city sales taxes, vehicle use taxes) which firms outside corporate limits were able to avoid. In this view, LSA-R.S. 47:462(A)(5) tends to equalize that burden by affording municipally domiciled vehicles relief in the form of lower state rates. This position is, of course, reinforced by the fact that these state taxes are enforced upon vehicles and the fact that municipal roadways serving the municipally domiciled vehicle are paid for by municipal rather than state taxes. (See Matthews v. Conway, 179 La. 875, 155 So. 255 (1934) in which the reciprocal ideas of road use and the price of road maintenance were discussed in a somewhat different context.) We agree that this is a rational basis for classification. Saia, however, argues that no evidence having been offered to prove the premises upon which these conclusions were reached, the trial court erroneously took judicial notice of the tax structure of this state. The tax structure of this state, or any other, is a coat of many colors. It is composed of state statutes, parochial and municipal ordinances, the decisions of many courts, and a variety of factual determinations. Insofar as statutes and the jurisprudence are concerned, judicial notice is irrelevant for, while sometimes inaccurate reference is made to judicial notice of laws of this state, the better view is that the application of these laws to the facts at bar is the essential function of courts. As to fact determinations, the only "fact" which may have been noticed by the trial court was that municipally domiciled firms, as a group, face higher property taxes. This conclusion rests upon the premise that urban property is generally more expensive than rural land and that the municipal firm must pay more for a given-size physical plant, the higher value creating a higher tax base. These facts are matters of common knowledge, subject to no reasonable dispute. They were, therefore, properly subjected to judicial notice. See Elba v. Thomas, La.App., 59 So. 2d 732 (1952) and Miranne v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., La.App., 54 So. 2d 538 (1951). Saia makes two further arguments. The first is that the concept of domicile, as applied to a vehicle, is unconstitutionally vague. We see no merit in this argument. While domicile may be an imperfect concept, it is a stable one. In the statutory context, it means the place from which the vehicle is regularly dispatched and where it is kept when not in use. The final Saia challenge rests upon the contention that the legislature exceeded its constitutional mandate when it *396 incorporated concepts of domicile in the taxing statute. The provision in question, Art. 6, Section 22 of the Constitution of 1921, provides in part: Except for subsection (a), this statute is permissive. No limitation on classifications is imposed. As this Court held in State v. Arthur Duvic's Sons, 185 La. 647, 170 So. 23 (1936): We hold, as did the district court, that the statute is constitutional. For the reasons assigned, the judgment of the district court is affirmed at plaintiff's costs.