stating that the four factors must be satisfied if a state wishes to tax “instru-mentalities of interstate commerce”
How later courts described this case
- stating that the four factors must be satisfied if a state wishes to tax “instru-mentalities of interstate commerce”
- Dana, L dissenting joined by Clifford, J.
- reiterating narrow construction of tax exemptions
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
DANA, J.,
with whom CLIFFORD, J., joins,
dissenting.
[¶ 18] I respectfully dissent.
[¶ 19] I agree that we should give the words “instrumentality of-interstate or foreign commerce” the meaning that the Legislature intended. Because a ship taking passengers from Maine waters into international waters and back is engaged in “foreign commerce”; see Lord v. S.S. Co., 102 U.S. 541, 544 , 26 L.Ed. 224 (1880); Bob-Lo Excursion Co. v. Michigan, 333 U.S. 28, 34-35 , 68 S.Ct. 358 , 92 L.Ed. 455 (1948); the vessel is unquestionably an “instrumentality of ... foreign commerce.” The Court reasons that because the Legislature may constitutionally impose a use tax on such a vessel, 36 M.R.S.A. § 1760 does not exempt the Friendship IV from taxation. This is a non sequitur. That a use tax would be permitted by the United States Constitution does not mean that the Legislature imposed such a tax. It is evident from the plain language used that the Legislature wanted to stay well clear of the taxation of the “instrumentalities] of interstate and foreign commerce.”
[¶20] The Maine Revenue Service’s effort to limit the exemption is understandable. The Legislature, however, did not qualify the exemption articulated in section 1760, and it is neither the Service’s function nor our function to craft such a qualification.