Opinion ID: 2567700
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Polar waived claims of discrimination against interstate commerce and fair relation between the tax and services provided.

Text: On appeal, Polar only devotes a single sentence to the third element of the Complete Auto testwhether the tax discriminates against interstate commerce stating in its brief, unfair apportionment itself is a form of discrimination against interstate commerce. Given the cursory nature of Polar's failure to argue this issue separately, we consider it waived. [36] Even if we were to consider the issue on its merits, it does not appear that the vessel tax discriminates against interstate commerce. In Moorman Manufacturing Co. v. Bair , the United States Supreme Court held that a tax did not violate the Commerce Clause even if it resulted in an out-of-state company paying a greater portion of its income in taxes because the tax apportionment method treat[ed] both local and foreign concerns with an even hand. [37] According to the Court, any alleged disparity was the consequence of the combined effect of multiple state statutes, and a single state was not responsible for that combined effect. [38] Like the tax in Moorman, the city's vessel tax applies equally to in-state and out-of-state vessels. Any effect on interstate commerce is incidental. Polar also waived any argument regarding the fourth element of Complete Auto whether the tax is fairly related to the services provided. Polar asserts that the tax is not fairly related to the services provided because the city's apportionment method effectively treats a portion of [out-of-Valdez] time as if the tankers were present in Valdez. But because Polar has not briefed the issue we decline to address it. Because Polar has attained a taxable situs in Valdez, and because the vessel tax is fairly apportioned, we hold that neither the tax nor the apportionment formula violates the Due Process Clause or the Commerce Clause.