Opinion ID: 2575803
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether MVET is an Excise Tax

Text: ¶ 55 The majority in Sheehan v. Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority, 155 Wash.2d 790, 123 P.3d 88 (2005) held that the Monorail's MVET was an excise tax and not a property tax. Today's majority opinion provides scant analysis or reasoning for the same conclusion beyond citation to Sheehan. As pointed out by the dissent in Sheehan, there was good reason to remand for further proceedings to determine whether the Monorail MVET is actually a property tax because it is imposed on ownership of a vehicle. Sheehan, 155 Wash.2d at 814-17, 123 P.3d 88 (J.M. Johnson, J., dissenting). [6] Recent events indicate there is little practical purpose for remanding this case for further proceedings. There is surely not a sufficient record for definitively concluding that the Monorail MVET is a valid excise tax. The record is to the contrary. ¶ 56 This court's jurisprudence has always narrowly construed the legislature's taxing power [7] and has likewise denied even legislative grant of taxing authority to a municipality wherever there is any doubt of the breadth or existence of such a grant. [8] The dissent in Sheehan makes the plain observation that the statutory grant of legislative taxing authority to the Monorail is devoid of any language indicating that it can be levied annually. See Sheehan, 155 Wash.2d at 810, 123 P.3d 88 (J.M. Johnson, J., dissenting). Our jurisprudence requires narrow construction of the grant of taxing authority. ¶ 57 As indicated in the Sheehan dissent, if the Monorail MVET is actually ad valorem or property taxes mislabeled as `excise,' we should not hesitate to say so and invalidate the taxes. Id. at 816, 123 P.3d 88. ¶ 58 I separately disagree with the majority's erroneous assertion that a sufficient nexus exists between the taxing event and Monorail because Seattle residents are the prime beneficiaries. Majority at 898. Seattle voters ultimately concluded to the contrary. This observation still adds nothing to the analysis of whether MVET is an excise or ad valorem tax.