Opinion ID: 1609622
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Used Tug, Ace

Text: Liability for use tax on this tug turns on whether there has been an implied repeal of a provision in § 789, Tit. 51, as amended, which specifically exempts used automotive vehicles from the operation of the use tax. It is conceded that this tug is an automotive vehicle. The levying section of the use tax act, § 788, Tit. 51, supra, prior to its amendment in 1951, Act No. 209, appvd. July 17, 1951, effective Oct. 1, 1951, Acts 1951, p. 472, contained the following provision: (b) An excise tax is hereby imposed on the storage, use or other consumption in this state of any automotive vehicle purchased at retail   . Section 789, Tit. 51, supra, as amended in 1949, Act No. 210, appvd. July 12, 1949, Acts 1949, p. 300, specifically exempted (u) used automotive vehicles from the operation of the use tax. This section, as so amended, still stands. In 1951, however, the levying provision of § 788, set out above, was amended, Act No. 209, supra, to read: (b) An excise tax is hereby imposed on the storage, use, or other consumption in this state of any new or used automotive vehicle, truck trailer or semi-trailer purchased at retail   . (Italicized words were added by the 1951 amendment.) In Alabama, the law governing implied repeals is well-settled and the cases on this point are singularly consistent. See 18 Ala.Dig., Statutes. A concise statement of the rule is contained in City of Birmingham v. Southern Express Co., 164 Ala. 529, 538, 51 So. 159, 162: Repeal by implication is not favored. It is only when two laws are so repugnant to or in conflict with each other that it must be presumed that the Legislature intended that the latter should repeal the former.    Implied repeal is essentially a question of determining the legislative intent as expressed in the statutes. Ex parte Jones, 212 Ala. 259, 260, 102 So. 234. When the provisions of two statutes are directly repugnant and cannot be reconciled, it must be presumed that the legislature intended an implied repeal, and the later statute prevails as the last expression of the legislative will. Union Central Life Insurance Co. v. State, 226 Ala. 420, 423, 147 So. 187; Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Farmers' Hardware Co., 223 Ala. 477, 479, 136 So. 824. Before the 1951 amendment, the use tax was levied on any automotive vehicle, subject to the specific exemption of used automotive vehicles contained in another section. The amendment changed the wording of the levying section to read any new or used automotive vehicle. It is pointed out by cross-appellant that any automotive vehicle was already a comprehensive phrase including all types. However, the insertion of the words new or used must have had some purpose other than mere redundancy; the legislature must have intended some change in the meaning of the phrase. The only reasonable construction is that the legislature intended that thereafter the use tax should apply specifically to used as well as to new automotive vehicles. [We here note that the 1951 amendment, Act No. 121, appvd. June 22, 1951, effective Oct. 1, 1951, Acts 1951, p. 348, of the sales tax act specifically imposed the sales tax on used automotive vehicles by adding subsection (d) to § 753, Tit. 51, but did not amend § 755, Tit. 51. which granted exemption to used automotive vehicles. It does not appear that the question of implied repeal with respect to the sales tax act has been before this court. See Rule A28-021 of the Department of Revenue, as amended in November 1951, which interprets the sales tax law in effect on October 1, 1951, as imposing the sales tax on used automotive vehicles.] As it is our opinion that the legislative intent as expressed in the 1951 amendment was clearly to extend the operation of the use tax to include used automotive vehicles, we find an implied repeal of subsection (u) of Section 789 which exempts used automotive vehicles from the tax. This exemption is directly repugnant to the 1951 amendment, and the two provisions obviously cannot be reconciled. Affirmed. SIMPSON, MERRILL and SPANN, JJ., concur.