Opinion ID: 2064119
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Motor Carrier Fuel Tax

Text: Indiana's motor carrier fuel tax applies to operators of commercial vehicles in our state. Indiana Code § 6-6-4.1-4 (1985 Supp.) imposes this tax [o]n the consumption of motor fuel by a carrier in its operations on highways in Indiana. Indiana Code § 6-6-4.1-4(d) (1985 Supp.) provides: The tax imposed under this section does not apply to that portion of motor fuel used to propel equipment mounted on a motor vehicle having a common reservoir for locomotion on the highway and the operation of such equipment, as determined by rule of the commissioner. Pursuant to this subsection of the statute, Ind. Admin. Code tit. 45, r. 13-4-7 (1986) sets forth the department's rules for exempting from the Indiana motor carrier fuel tax that portion of motor fuel used to propel equipment not used for locomotion. This regulation (the 1986 Regulation) read as follows during the tax years at issue in this case: (b) The tax imposed under IC 6-6-4.1-4 does not apply to twenty-four percent (24%) of the motor fuel which is consumed on Indiana highways by a tank truck which has a common fuel reservoir for both locomotion on the highway and the operation of the pumping equipment... . ... . (f) A portion of the tax imposed under IC 6-6-4.1-4 may be determined, by the administrator, not to apply to the motor fuel consumed on Indiana highways by firetrucks, streetsweepers and other motor vehicles which have a common fuel reservoir for both locomotion on the highway and the operation of other equipment after: (1) a showing by the person or carrier of the proportion of motor fuel used for the operation of equipment other than for locomotion along the highway; and (2) presentation of documents and information as requested by the administrator. Ind. Admin. Code tit. 45, r. 13-4-7 (1986). Following amendment in 1991, the rule (the 1991 Regulation) read as follows: (a) A motor carrier subject to the [motor carrier fuel] tax ... is entitled to a proportional use exemption for tax paid on use of fuel for a commercial purpose when the fuel is placed into ... a common fuel supply reservoir for both locomotion on public highway and a commercial purpose which is exempt from the motor carrier fuel tax... . (b) For purposes of subsection (a), proportional use exemption shall be presumed to be as follows: (2) For tank trucks, twenty-four percent (24%) .. . ... . (18) For dump trucks, twenty-three percent (23%)... (19) For semitractor and dump trailer combinations ... fifteen percent (15%) ... (20) For semitractor and tank trailer combinations (commonly referred to as a tank transport), fifteen percent (15%) ... (21) For pneumatic tank trucks, fifteen percent (15%)... . Ind. Admin. Code tit. 45, r. 13-4-7 (1992).
In determining the amount of motor carrier fuel tax owed in this case, the department classified taxpayer's pneumatic trucks under subsection (f) of the 1986 Regulation as other motor vehicles which have a common fuel reservoir for ... locomotion... and the operation of ... equipment. Exercising its authority under subsection (f), the department determined the proportional exemption to be 15%. Taxpayer appealed the department's finding in the Tax Court of Indiana. Ruling on cross motions for summary judgment, the Tax Court held that taxpayer's pneumatic trucks were tank trucks under subsection (b) of the 1986 Regulation and that taxpayer was therefore entitled to a 24% proportional exemption. Bulkmatic Transp. Co., 629 N.E.2d at 958. The Tax Court interpreted the term tank truck to be a truck with a receptacle for holding liquids, and found that taxpayer's pneumatic trucks met this definition. Id. at 957-58. Second, the Tax Court concluded that the 1991 Regulation clearly defining tank truck as a single unit truck, as opposed to a double unit pneumatic truck, was a change to the rule rather than simply a clarification of the department's longstanding interpretation of this regulation. Id. at 958. The department contends that the Tax Court erroneously determined that taxpayer's pneumatic tank trucks were tank trucks under subsection (b) of the 1986 Regulation because the Tax Court ignored the department's uncontested evidence which showed that subsection (f) was the only subsection it had ever used prior to or during the years at issue to determine the motor carrier fuel tax exemption for pneumatic trucks, thereby erroneously giving no weight to the department's historically uniform interpretation and application of this regulation.
We conclude that the pneumatic trucks did not qualify as tank trucks under subsection (b) of the 1986 Regulation and that the Tax Court erred in giving no weight to the department's historical interpretation of the 1986 Regulation. Where the meaning of a regulation is in question, the interpretation of the relevant administrative agency should have great weight unless this interpretation would be inconsistent with the regulation itself. State ex rel. Blair v. Gettinger (1952), 230 Ind. 588, 602, 105 N.E.2d 161, 168 (citing Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410, 65 S.Ct. 1215, 89 L.Ed. 1700 (1945)). The department submitted an affidavit of its special tax division administrator with its summary judgment motion. In this affidavit, the administrator outlined the development of the exemption and attested to the facts that only five vehicles were listed by name in the 1986 Regulation and that this regulation's vehicle exemption rules were further developed almost from the date of promulgation. Thus, in June of 1986, the department determined pneumatic trucks would be classified in the other motor vehicle category of subsection (f) for purposes of determining the appropriate exemption percentage. The affidavit established that the department's 1991 modification of the 1986 Regulation specifying the exemption percentage for vehicle types that had historically been categorized as other motor vehicles merely reflected its original interpretation of the regulation as demonstrated through eight years (1986-1991) of uniform application. The Tax Court's conclusion that the 1991 modification of the 1986 Regulation was a clear change in the regulation, Bulkmatic Transp., 629 N.E.2d at 958, presupposes that at some time pneumatic trucks were entitled to a 24% motor carrier fuel tax exemption that was reduced to 15%. We find this presupposition erroneous because taxpayer has not shown, nor does our review of the record reveal, any evidence that the department had ever subjected pneumatic trucks to a motor carrier fuel tax exemption percentage other than 15%. We also note that ambiguous exemption statutes are to be strictly construed against the taxpayer. General Motors Corp. v. Indiana Dep't of State Revenue (1991), Ind.Tax, 578 N.E.2d 399, 404, aff'd (1992), Ind., 599 N.E.2d 588. The Tax Court's failure to give any weight at all to the department's historically uniform interpretation of Ind. Admin. Code tit. 45, r. 13-4-7 (1986) in construing the exemption it provides violates this principle. For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that taxpayer's pneumatic trucks did not qualify as tank trucks under subsection (b) of the 1986 Regulation during 1987, 1988, and 1989, and that the department appropriately applied the 15% exemption rate pursuant to its authority under subsection (f) of that regulation.