Court Opinion

ID: 9598583
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:10:03.12437+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:55.645080
License: Public Domain

THOMAS, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent from the conclusion of the other members of the Court in this instance. The purposes of the Multistate Tax Compact are:
“ARTICLE I. PURPOSES
‘The purposes of this compact are to:
“1. Facilitate proper determination of State and local tax liability of multistate taxpayers, including the equitable apportionment of tax bases and settlement of apportionment disputes.
“2. Promote uniformity or compatibility in significant components of tax systems. “3. Facilitate taxpayer convenience and compliance in the filing of tax returns and in other phases of tax administration. “4. Avoid duplicate taxation.” Section 39-376, W.S.1957 (1975 Cum.Supp.).
Those purposes are best served with respect to the application of use taxes if the chronological attachment of the use taxes of the participating states to the property subject to taxation is observed and honored. The word “paid” so critical to the majority determination then would be a condition to the claiming of the credit, nothing more. Construing that provision to mean “first paid” results in a race to collection or payment among the participating states. Such a construction makes the application of the compact eccentric if not irrational. This result is the antithesis of the purposes for the compact.
Recognizing that the repeal of this provision in Wyoming makes this case of little precedential value in our state, it does seem that our decision may be turned to by other jurisdictions since we apparently are writing on a clean slate. I would urge other jurisdictions to consider carefully the purpose of the compact and the construction which most appropriately serves that purpose.