Opinion ID: 2102534
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Was Cook Tractor a common carrier?

Text: In relevant part, section 144.030.2(3) provides a tax exemption for materials, parts, and equipment used on motor vehicles engaged as common carriers. Cook Tractor argues that it is entitled to the section 144.030.2(3) tax exemption because it meets numerous definitions of common carrier. Section 144.030.2(3), however, does not define common carrier for purposes of claiming the exemption. This Court's primary responsibility in statutory construction is to ascertain the intent of the General Assembly from the language used and to give effect to that intent. Goldberg v. Admin. Hearing Comm'n of Mo., 609 S.W.2d 140, 144 (Mo. banc 1980). Undefined words are given their plain and ordinary meaning as found in the dictionary in order to ascertain the intent of lawmakers. Asbury v. Lombardi, 846 S.W.2d 196, 201 (Mo. banc 1993). In construing a statute it is appropriate to take into consideration statutes involving similar or related subject matter when such statutes shed light upon the meaning of the statute being construed, even though the statutes are found in different chapters and were enacted at different times. Citizens Elec. Corp. v. Dir. of Dept. of Revenue, 766 S.W.2d 450, 452 (Mo. banc 1989). When the legislature enacts a statute referring to terms that have had other judicial or legislative meaning attached to them, the legislature is presumed to have acted with knowledge of that judicial or legislative action. Id. WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY defines a common carrier as: 1: one that undertakes for hire the carrying of goods ... treating its whole clientele without individual preference or discrimination and being responsible for all losses and injuries [with some exceptions] 2: a public utility or public service company 3 in federal regulatory use: a carrier offering its services to all comers for interstate transportation by ... motor vehicle ... [.] WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INT'L DICTIONARY 458 (Unabridged 1993). BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY defines a common carrier as [a] carrier that is required by law to transport passengers or freight, without refusal, if the approved fare or charge is paid. BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 205 (7th ed.1999). Chapter 390, which regulates motor carriers, defines a common carrier as any person which holds itself out to the general public to engage in the transportation by motor vehicle of passengers or property for hire or compensation upon the public highways and airlines engaged in intrastate commerce[.] Sec. 390.020(6). The Director argues that Cook Tractor did not operate in a way fitting this definition of common carrier, but instead operated in conformance with the statutory definition of a contract carrier [4] or a private carrier. [5] Missouri case law has defined common carrier consistent with these statutory and dictionary definitions. In State ex rel. Anderson v. Witthaus, 340 Mo. 1004, 102 S.W.2d 99 (banc 1937), this Court noted that `anyone who holds himself out to the public as ready to undertake for hire or reward the transportation of goods from place to place, and so invites custom of the public, is in the estimation of the law a common carrier.' Witthaus, 102 S.W.2d at 102 (quoting Lloyd v. Haugh & Keenan Storage & Transfer Co., 223 Pa. 148, 72 A. 516, 517 (1909)). According to Witthaus, a common carrier advertises its business in a way to solicit the general public and `holds itself in readiness to engage with any one who might apply.' Id. (quoting Lloyd, 72 A. at 517). Witthaus highlights that the test of whether one is a common carrier is `whether he has invited the trade of the public.' Id. (quoting Klawansky v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 123 Pa.Super. 375, 187 A. 248, 251 (Super.Ct.1936)). A common carrier does not discriminate in dealing with the general public, but holds himself out to carry for every one who asks him. State ex rel. M.O. Danciger & Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 275 Mo. 483, 205 S.W. 36, 42 (1918). The Director's regulation 12 CSR 10-110.300(2)(A) reflects these varying definitions and requirements for common carriers. This regulation defines a common carrier as: [A]ny person that holds itself out to the public as engaging in the transportation of passengers or property for hire [and is] required by law to transport passengers or property for others without refusal if the fare or charge is paid. [And who] [t]o qualify ... must be registered as a common carrier with all agencies that require such registration.... This Court has previously addressed what a carrier needs to do to hold himself out to the general public such that he can be considered a common carrier. Holding out can be accomplished by advertising or soliciting by agents, or may result from a course of business or conduct, but essentially must be a public offering of the service that communicates that it is available to those who wish to use it. State ex rel. Pub. Serv. Comm'n v. Logan, 411 S.W.2d 86, 88-89 (Mo.1967) (citing Vincent v. U.S., 58 A.2d 829, 831 (D.C.1948)). The parties disagree whether Cook Tractor held itself out to the general public as a common carrier during the tax years at issue. The Director argues that Cook Tractor did not hold itself out as a common carrier merely because it announced it could haul equipment at its public auctions or because it put the company's name and contact information on its trucks. This Court agrees with the AHC that Cook Tractor failed to present sufficient evidence that it held itself out to the general public as a common carrier during the tax years at issue. The evidence in this case supported the AHC's conclusion that Cook Tractor does not hold itself out to or serve the general public, but rather negotiates delivery terms with its customers who request hauling services. The evidence showed that Cook Tractor derived the majority of its business from private arrangements with its regular customers. Tellingly, Cook Tractor reported no freight income in the month it did not hold an auction. Cook Tractor did not advertise itself as a carrier during the tax years at issue. Its announcements at its public auctions that it was available to haul goods for purchasers did not state that it offered hauling services to the general public without discrimination or at an approved rate. The mere fact that its name, phone number, and registration information appeared on its trucks did not communicate that it engaged in the transportation of property for hire. The AHC correctly concluded that Cook Tractor was not entitled to a section 144.030.2(3) exemption for the purchases at issue because the company failed to show that it operated as a common carrier when those purchases were made. [6]