Court Opinion

ID: 9785249
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 21:12:09.852544+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:13.618937
License: Public Domain

LEVY, J.,
with whom MEAD, J., joins, dissenting.
[¶ 25] I agree with the Court’s analysis with respect to the exemptions from the use tax contained in 36 M.R.S.A. § 1760(23-0(0 and (82) (Supp.2002). I also agree with the Court’s conclusion that the exemption established in 36 M.R.S.A. § 1760(45)(B) (Supp.2002) is ambiguous because it is reasonably susceptible to different interpretations. See Competitive Energy Servs., LLC v. Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 2003 ME 12, ¶ 15, 818 A.2d 1039, 1046. I disagree, however, with the Court’s construction of subsection (45)(B) so as to treat property used in Maine during the twelve months following an out-of-state purchase as exempt from taxation unless the use in Maine is shown to have been “sufficiently substantial” to justify imposition of the tax. 2011 ME 49, ¶¶ 22-24, 17 A.3d 667. Because the Legislature did not adopt a substantiality test when it enacted this law, and the Court offers no guidance as to where or how to draw the line between in-state use that is sufficiently substantial and that which is not, I respectfully dissent.
[¶ 26] Section (45)(B) exempts from use taxation “[s]ales of property purchased and used by the present owner outside the State ... [f]or more than 12 months[.]” To construe the statute, I look to the Legislature’s .general definition of the word “use” in 36 M.R.S. § 1752(21) (2010): “‘Use’ includes the exercise in this State of any right or power over tangible personal property incident to its ownership!.]” Subsection (45) also specifically defines use for its purposes as “not including] storage,” but meaning “actual utilization of the property for a purpose consistent with its design.” 36 M.R.S.A. § 1760(45). It follows that one who exercises any right or power over property and actually utilizes it for its designed purpose in this State at any time during the twelve-month period following a purchase is not exercising that right or power over the property “outside the State ... for more than twelve months.” 36 M.R.S.A. § 1760(45)(B). Because Blue Yonder exercised rights incident to its ownership of its airplane in Maine for a period of no less than twenty-one days during the first twelve months of ownership, it is not entitled to an exemption from the use tax.
*675[¶ 27] There is nothing absurd or illogical about the preceding construction. It may or may not be sound tax or economic policy to levy the use tax against property used in Maine for as little as a day or two during the twelve-month period following an out-of-state purchase, but those are judgments to be made by the Legislature, not this Court.5 Further, we need not decide whether a truly de minimis use of an airplane in Maine, such as a single brief stop for refueling, would disqualify a taxpayer from taking the exemption. That scenario is not presented by this case. Moreover, we should not reject a construction of a statute that is fully consonant with the words enacted by the Legislature and avoids the need for any judicial embellishment — like the Court’s substantiality requirement — based upon nothing more than the prospect that the construction could produce an absurd or illogical result if we are ever called upon to apply it to an extreme and therefore unlikely scenario.
[¶ 28] The Legislature amended subsection (45) effective January 1, 2007, to specify that, as applied to aircraft, the exemption is available when the aircraft is present in this State for no more than twenty days during the first twelve months of ownership. P.L.2005, ch. 519, § EE-1 (effective Jan. 1, 2007) (codified and subsequently amended at 36 M.R.S. § 1760(45)(A-3) (2010)). The Legislature did not give the amendment retroactive effect. This change in the law was wholly within the province of the Legislature, and we should defer to its choice to apply the amendment prospectively only. Instead, the Court retroactively revises the earlier version of the exemption by adding a sub-stantiality test in an effort to ameliorate what may be a harsh outcome in this case. Ironically, even under the current exemption as modified by the Legislature, Blue Yonder, LLC, would not be entitled to claim the exemption.
[¶ 29] I would affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.

. That the Legislature is fully capable of making such judgments is shown by the companion exemption in 36 M.R.S. § 760(45)(A-1) (2010) for watercraft registered outside of the State by an individual who is a resident of another state at the time of the purchase. Such a purchase is exempt from the Maine use tax if "the watercraft is operated in the State not more than 30 days during the 12 months following its purchase for a purpose other than temporary storage.” Id.