# Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Bair

> Supreme Court of Iowa · September 21, 1983 · 338 N.W.2d 338

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9740456

## Case

- **Full name:** The ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY; Burlington Northern Railroad Company; Chicago and North Western Transportation Company; Illinois Central Gulf Railroad Company; Norfolk and Western Railway Company; Richard B. Ogilvie, Trustee of the Property of Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company, Debtor; And Union Pacific Railroad Company, Appellants, v. Gerald D. BAIR, Director of Revenue of the Iowa Department of Revenue; Iowa Department of Revenue; Iowa Railway Finance Authority; Maurice E. Baringer, Treasurer of Iowa and Custodian of the Special Railroad Facility Fund; Raymond L. Kassel, Director of Transportation of the State Department of Transportation; State Transportation Commission of the State Department of Transportation; And State Department of Transportation, Appellees. Iowa Railroad Shippers Company, Intervenor
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Iowa
- **Decided:** September 21, 1983
- **Citations:** 338 N.W.2d 338; 1983 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 1674
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Carter
- **Judges:** Uhlenhopp, Carter, McCormick, Harris, Larson, Wolle
- **Cited by:** 28 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9740456

## Opinion text

CARTER, Justice
(concurring specially).
Although I cannot accept the court’s reasoning as to why the railroad fuel tax is violative of 49 U.S.C. section 11503 (b)(4), I agree that it is. I therefore concur in the result.
I do not find the court’s comparison of the railroad fuel tax with other taxes levied incident to truck, barge, and air transportation to be helpful for purposes of applying section 11503(b)(4). The comparison which is made by the majority is based on supposed competitive disadvantage. Although the elimination of competitive disadvantage may have been one of the legislative purposes for the enactment of the statute, competitive disadvantage is not a practical standard by which to determine whether a tax is discriminatory. Too many variables are involved to make such comparisons meaningful.
*349 I do not believe it would be possible under the test laid down by the majority to sustain any tax whose burden falls on interstate rail carriers if the incident of taxation differs from that employed in taxing other commercial taxpayers. I do not believe it was the intent of Congress to prohibit special tax treatment of interstate rail carriers under section 11503(b)(4) if the tax is tied to benefits which are conferred on interstate rail carriers. Where, however, a tailored tax on the activities of interstate rail carriers is placed in a separate fund to be expended for specific purposes, the carriers protected by section 11503(b)(4) must receive from that fund benefits which are proportionate to the tax imposed. In the present case, while some individual carriers may benefit from the use made of Iowa’s railroad fuel tax, any benefits flowing to interstate rail carriers as a class are too tenuous to stave off the carrier’s section 11503(b)(4) challenge.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9740456. Public record. Not legal advice.