There is more. The fact that the responsibility for administering the statute is assigned to the State Tax Assessor cuts in the same direction. So too does the fact that, throughout the body of the 1995 Act, the legislature consistently refers to its milk surcharge as a tax. See , e.g. , Me. Although such labels are not conclusive, see Keleher v. New Eng.
Many imposts fall into the gray area in the center of the spectrum.
So it is here. While the question is close, we believe that Maine's milk handling surcharge falls nearer to the tax end of the spectrum than to the fee end. Although this element alone is not always decisive, it is particularly important where, as here, the stated purpose of the impost is to garner revenue. In the circumstances of this case, this factor is sufficient to outweigh the few straws in the wind that point in the opposite direction. In order to reach this conclusion, however, we would have to view the milk handling surcharge in conjunction with the later subsidies to Maine dairy farmers as a single, integrated scheme, and we would have to disregard the Maine legislature's statement of purpose.