Opinion ID: 2558143
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Use of the Aircraft in Maine

Text: [¶ 12] Before addressing any of the asserted exemptions, we must determine whether Victor Bravo was using the aircraft during that twelve-month period. By statute, the term use was defined as follows: Use includes the exercise in this State of any right or power over tangible personal property incident to its ownership, including the derivation of income, whether received in money or in the form of other benefits, by a lessor from the rental of tangible personal property located in this State. 36 M.R.S. § 1752(21) (emphasis added). The statute plainly included the lease of property for consideration as a form of use by the lessor, Victor Bravo. The remaining question is whether the aircraft was located in this State. [¶ 13] We have interpreted the phrase located in this State to mean coming to rest in the State after importation and ... becoming part of the common mass of property within the State. Realco Servs., Inc. v. Halperin, 355 A.2d 743, 747 (Me. 1976) (emphasis omitted) (citing Hunnewell Trucking, Inc. v. Johnson, 157 Me. 338, 172 A.2d 732 (1961) and Commercial Leasing Inc. v. Johnson, 160 Me. 32, 197 A.2d 323 (1964)). Conducting a plain-meaning analysis, we held that the Legislature intended the words `located in this State' to relate to personal property which, in fact, had come to rest within the State with a corresponding loss of all transient characteristics. Id. Applying this interpretation, we held that trailers that had a mere temporary presence in Maine for the purely transient purpose of reshipment to destinations outside the State were not located in Maine and were not, therefore, subject to Maine's use tax. Id. [¶ 14] The present case is distinguishable from the facts of Realco, however, because the aircraft at issue here was not merely a conveyance used for shipping across state lines. Rather, the aircraft was destined for Maine on thirty-seven trips and was present in Maine during at least 156 days in the first year of Victor Bravo's ownership. In these circumstances, the aircraft was properly considered to have come to rest in Maine in a way that went beyond a temporary, transient presence. Accordingly, the statute is properly interpreted to permit the assessment of a use tax on the aircraft, unless an exemption applies.