DA 16-0474

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

2017 MT 122

RICHLAND AVIATION, INC.,

 Plaintiff, Appellee

 and Cross-Appellant,

 v.

STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,

 Defendant, Appellant

 and Cross-Appellee.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Seventh Judicial District,

In and For the County of Richland, Cause No. DV 14-40

Honorable Katherine M. Bidegaray, Presiding Judge

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

For Appellant:

David R. Stewart, Courtney Mathieson, Elizabeth M. Roberts, Special 

Assistant Attorneys General, Department of Revenue, Helena, Montana

For Appellee:

Jared M. Le Fevre, David C. Clukey, Crowley Fleck PLLP, Billings, 

Montana

Submitted on Briefs: April 12, 2017

 Decided: May 23, 2017

Filed:

__________________________________________

Clerk

05/23/2017

Case Number: DA 16-0474
2

Justice Jim Rice delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

¶1 The Montana Department of Revenue (DOR) appeals the judgment of the Seventh 

Judicial District Court, which granted summary judgment in favor of Richland Aviation, 

Inc. (Richland Aviation), by holding that Richland Aviation is not a “scheduled airline” 

subject to central assessment by DOR. We affirm and state the issue as follows:

Did the District Court err by concluding Richland Aviation was not a “scheduled 

airline” and therefore not subject to central assessment?

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Since 1971, Richland Aviation, a company based in Sidney, Richland County, 

Montana, has provided on-demand flight services, operating from the Sidney-Richland 

Airport. Richland Aviation owns six light, twin piston engine aircraft, the largest of which 

is a Cessna 404 with a maximum capacity of 2,684 pounds. Richland Aviation hires out 

its aircraft and related services for the transport of people and goods on a contract basis. 

Richland Aviation does not provide scheduled or pre-set flights beyond the individual 

arrangements it enters with those hiring its services. As Richland Aviation explains, “[o]ne 

cannot walk up to the gate, view a list of set and published dates and times for flight, and 

purchase a ticket. Rather, use of the airplane is negotiated on a case-by-case basis and via 

a negotiated contract.”

¶3 Richland Aviation has entered an agreement with the United Parcel Service (UPS) 

to pick up and deliver freight at certain locations on a routine basis. Under the negotiated 

agreement, the date, time, and pickup locations are determined exclusively by UPS, and all 
3

flights provided by Richland Aviation pursuant to the agreement are reserved exclusively 

for the transport of UPS freight. 

¶4 Since its inception, Richland Aviation has registered its aircraft with the Department 

of Transportation pursuant to the aeronautical regulation and licensing provisions in 

§ 67-3-201, et seq., MCA. As DOR explains, these provisions impose an aircraft 

registration fee in lieu of property taxes which is mutually exclusive to the system of central 

assessment of scheduled airlines, and which is a prerequisite to operation of the aircraft.1 

See § 67-3-201(1), MCA (“[A] person may not operate or cause or authorize to be operated 

a civil aircraft within this state unless the aircraft has an appropriate effective registration, 

license, certificate, or permit issued or approved by the United States government that has 

been registered with the department and the registration with the department is in force.”). 

Richland Aviation’s aircraft have never been centrally assessed for taxation by DOR. 

¶5 In 2013, DOR sent a questionnaire to Richland Aviation and other air carriers to 

determine if these companies “were operating in a manner that would subject them to 

central assessment.” Richland Aviation returned the questionnaire, indicating that it 

provided air transport services under a contract with UPS. DOR ultimately determined that 

Richland Aviation “performs regularly scheduled flights for UPS” and was therefore

subject to centrally assessed taxes. Richland Aviation objected and filed the instant 

proceeding to determine whether it was subject to the aircraft registration statutes, rather 

than central tax assessment. 

 

1 Br. of Appellant 2. 
4

¶6 Because there was no statutory definition for the statutory term, “regularly 

scheduled flight,” the District Court reasoned that the term “scheduled airline” had been 

rendered “statutorily undefined and ambiguous,” and looked to authority from federal and 

sister jurisdictions to define these terms. It concluded that Richland Aviation was not a 

scheduled airline because it “does not hold out to the public that it operates between certain 

places at certain times,” and granted summary judgment to Richland Aviation. DOR 

appeals. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶7 We review de novo a district court’s ruling on summary judgment, applying the 

criteria of M. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3). Citizens for a Better Flathead v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 

2016 MT 256, ¶ 10, 385 Mont. 156, 381 P.3d 555 (citing Pilgeram v. GreenPoint Mortg. 

Funding, Inc., 2013 MT 354, ¶ 9, 373 Mont. 1, 313 P.3d 839). We review a district court’s 

conclusions of law to determine whether the court’s interpretation of the law is correct.

W. Energy Co. v. Mont. Dep’t of Revenue, 1999 MT 289, ¶ 6, 297 Mont. 55, 990 P.2d 767 

(citing Nimmick v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 270 Mont. 315, 319, 891 P.2d 1154, 

1156 (1995)).

DISCUSSION

¶8 Did the District Court err by determining that Richland Aviation was not a 

“scheduled airline” and therefore not subject to central assessment?

¶9 After the District Court entered its decision in this case, and before appellate 

briefing was completed, we decided Montana Department of Revenue v. Alpine Aviation, 

Inc., 2016 MT 283, 385 Mont. 282, 384 P.3d 1035. Alpine was a unique interlocutory 
5

appeal of an adjudication of a “substantive question of law” pending before the State Tax 

Appeal Board, pursuant to § 15-2-305, MCA, with no factual record. Alpine, ¶¶ 7, 10. The 

purpose of that litigation was to obtain a definition of the key, but undefined, statutory 

term, “regularly scheduled flights,” § 15-23-401(1), MCA, for purposes of its application

within other provisions that require central assessment of “scheduled airlines” or 

“scheduled airline compan[ies].” Sections 15-23-101(3), 15-23-401(8), MCA; Alpine, ¶ 8. 

We defined “regularly scheduled flights” as “those which follow an interval according to 

timetables and locations predefined by the carrier and which fly regardless of whether there 

are passengers or freight to be carried.” Alpine, ¶ 15. We noted that “[o]ne key concept

. . . is who sets the flight schedule. An airline arranges a regularly scheduled flight; the 

customer does not.” Alpine, ¶ 14 (emphasis in original). Given the posture of that appeal, 

we did not reach the ultimate question of whether Alpine Aviation was a scheduled airline 

subject to central assessment. Alpine, ¶ 10.

¶10 DOR argues that the District Court’s order conflicts with Alpine because the District 

Court reasoned that the statutory terms were ambiguous and looked to foreign authority to 

arrive at a definition, when there is no ambiguity in the statutes. It also argues that Richland 

Aviation should be deemed a “scheduled airline” because it offers its services for hire by 

the general public and provides those services in accordance with an agreed-upon schedule, 

citing its contract with UPS. In answer, Richland Aviation argues that the District Court 

should be affirmed because its services do not constitute “regularly scheduled flights” as 

defined in Alpine. Richland Aviation argues that, even if it flies regularly under its contract 
6

with UPS, the schedule and locations are not “predefined by the carrier,” but, rather, 

predefined by the customer. Alternatively, Richland Aviation “invites this Court to 

reconsider the definition of ‘regularly scheduled flights’ it provided in Alpine Aviation, 

taking into account the historical, industry, technical, and peculiar meaning of the term 

‘scheduled.’”

¶11 “It is a basic premise of the law of taxation that the foundation for levying and 

assessing a tax depends upon the existence of a valid legislative act specifically designating 

the imposition of the tax. Nothing is taxable unless clearly authorized by statute.” Powder 

River Cnty. v. Mont. Dep’t of Revenue, 2002 MT 259, ¶ 40, 312 Mont. 198, 60 P.3d 357 

(citing Connick v. Judge, 167 Mont. 357, 361, 538 P.2d 1024, 1027 (1975)); accord N. Pac. 

Ry. v. Carland, 5 Mont. 146, 200, 3 P. 134, 162 (1884); State ex rel. Tillman v. District Ct., 

101 Mont. 176, 181, 53 P.2d 107, 109-10 (1936); Swartz v. Berg, 147 Mont. 178, 182-83, 

411 P.2d 736, 738 (1966) (noting tax statutes are to be interpreted “stricti juris,” that is, 

“strictly construed against the taxing authorities, and in favor of the taxpayer,” citing 51 

Am. Jur. Taxation § 650); Omimex Can., Ltd. v. Mont. Dep’t of Revenue, 2008 MT 403, 

¶ 21, 347 Mont. 176, 201 P.3d 3 (holding “tax statutes are to be strictly construed against 

the taxing authority and in favor of the taxpayer”). 

¶12 In the briefing in this case, as in Alpine, the parties discuss a substantial body of 

general aviation law and legislative history that they would like the Court to incorporate 

into the analysis of the subject statutory definitions. See Alpine, ¶¶ 9-10. Richland 

Aviation here draws our attention to this “entire universe of legal authority” in the hope 
7

that we will revisit the definition recently adopted in Alpine, particularly by importing the 

technical industry meaning of the term “scheduled.” See, e.g., Aircraft Owners & Pilots 

Ass’n v. Port Auth. of N.Y., 305 F. Supp. 93, 97-98 (E.D.N.Y. 1969) (distinguishing 

scheduled airlines, or “carriers,” from “General Aviation,” which “uses smaller aircraft” 

and “possibly reflects a shorter average haul”). However, we conclude it is unnecessary to 

do so in order to properly apply the Montana statutes. “[T]here is no reason for us to 

engage in a discussion of the legislative history to construe [a] statute when we have 

determined that the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous on its face.” State v. 

Goebel, 2001 MT 73, ¶ 21, 305 Mont. 53, 31 P.3d 335 (citation omitted). Our reasoning 

in Alpine demonstrated that the meaning of the words chosen by the Legislature was clear 

on its face, as we noted that dictionary definitions of the statutory terms produced “common 

sense renderings.” Alpine, ¶ 13. We realize that Alpine was devoid of a factual record. 

Nonetheless, the Legislature did not choose to employ industry terms such as “general 

aviation,” and we need not consider them where the issue is resolved under the plain 

wording of the statutes. 

¶13 DOR is required to centrally assess the property of “scheduled airlines.” 

Section 15-23-101(3), MCA. A “scheduled airline company” is “any person who 

undertakes directly or indirectly to engage in the business of scheduled air commerce.” 

Section 15-23-401(8), MCA. In turn, “air commerce” is “the transportation by aircraft of 

persons or property for hire in interstate, intrastate, or international transportation on 

regularly scheduled flights.” Section 15-23-401(1), MCA. In Alpine, we defined 
8

“regularly scheduled flights” as “those which follow an interval according to timetables 

and locations predefined by the carrier and which fly regardless of whether there are 

passengers or freight to be carried.” Alpine, ¶ 15. Such flights “occur[] on a uniform or 

unvarying, and reoccurring, basis as preset by an airline and offered for hire to the public.” 

Alpine, ¶ 14. A key element of these definitions is “who sets the flight schedule. An airline 

arranges a regularly scheduled flight; the customer does not.” Alpine, ¶ 14 (emphasis in 

original).

¶14 DOR argues that the discussion in Alpine of “who sets the flight” is dictum because 

“[t]his Court provided no further elaboration, nor any authority upon which to rely,” but 

DOR overlooks the unique nature of the Alpine appeal. Alpine was decided without a 

factual record from which to elaborate, and the opinion could be considered, under DOR’s 

view, obiter dictum in its entirety, because we did not resolve the ultimate issue. More to 

the point, the concept of the airline arranging the flight, and not the customer, simply 

restates the clear meaning of the phrases “timetables and locations predefined by the 

carrier” and flying “regardless of whether there are passengers or freight to be carried,” 

which are included in the definition of “regularly scheduled flights.” Alpine, ¶ 15. 

¶15 Applying these definitions here, Richland Aviation does not engage in “regularly 

scheduled flights” required for central assessment. Richland Aviation does not publish or 

otherwise predefine a schedule of flights that it offers to the public. It does not fly 

“according to timetables and locations predefined by the carrier.” Alpine, ¶ 15. It flies on 
9

a schedule that is arranged by the customer. Here, the customer whose contract gives rise 

to this litigation, UPS, sets the dates, times, and pickup locations—not Richland Aviation. 

¶16 This conclusion corresponds with Montana’s aircraft registration statutes. 

“[A]ircraft required to be registered in Montana are subject to a fee. The registration fee 

is in lieu of property tax.” Section 67-3-204(1), MCA (emphasis added). However, 

“aircraft operated by an airline company and regularly scheduled for the primary purpose 

of carrying persons or property for hire in interstate or international transportation” are 

exempt from registration. Section 67-3-201(3)(c), MCA (emphasis added). As such, 

aircraft that are subject to the registration and fee requirements in Title 67, chapter 2, part 2, 

MCA, imposed in lieu of property taxes, are generally not subject to taxation by central 

assessment under § 15-23-101(3), MCA.

¶17 The District Court did not have the benefit of our ruling in Alpine when it issued its 

opinion. Even though it employed a different analysis, concluding the statutes were 

ambiguous and looking to foreign authority, the District Court nonetheless reached the 

correct result. 

¶18 Affirmed. 

/S/ JIM RICE

We concur: 

/S/ MICHAEL E WHEAT

/S/ DIRK M. SANDEFUR

/S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA

/S/ LAURIE McKINNON

/S/ BETH BAKER