Court Opinion

ID: 9655009
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 18:57:49.566918+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:15.504274
License: Public Domain

WILLIAMS, Judge
(dissenting).
The majority of the Court is of the opinion that the two revenue measures (1) Sales and Use Tax and (2) Motor Vehicle Usage Tax are so inseparable as to be incapable of individual interpretation. The fact is, however, the Sales and Use Tax (Chapter 5, Acts 1960) is entirely new legislation, while the Motor Vehicle Usage Tax has been in effect since 1936. The Motor Vehicle Usage Tax statute was amended in 1960 to the extent, insofar as pertinent here, of *791deleting certain exemptions from that statute. A further amendment was by an Act (Chapter 186) completely separate and distinct from the Act providing for Sales and Use Tax (Chapter 5). The Motor Vehicle Usage Tax now and since its inception has levied a usage tax on every motor vehicle used in this State, subject to certain exemptions. The motor vehicle in question here does not fall within a class that is exempted therein. The Sales and Use Tax Act allows a credit against that tax if a sales tax has been paid in another state under a reciprocal arrangement. That credit provided by the Sales and Use Tax cannot be made a part of the separate and distinct Motor Vehicle Usage Tax by judicial fiat. That the Sales and Use Tax was enacted in 1960 and the Motor Vehicle Usage Tax was amended in the same year should not be treated as destroying their separate identities.
We have before us a taxpayer who is claiming an exemption from the Motor Vehicle Usage Tax by virtue of the credit -'revision that exists only under the general ales and Use Tax. The Acts in question are capable of separate interpretation and should be so construed.
For these reasons, I am of the opinion the' appellant is not entitled to an exemption, and respectfully dissent from the majority opinion. Judges Palmore and Stewart join me in this dissent.