KIEWIT SONS v ST BD OF EQUALIZA

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 12199 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF M N A A OTN PETER KIEWIT SONS ' CO. a Corporation, , P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION OF THE STATE OF MONTANA, J . MORLEY COOPER, Chairman, JOHN C. ALLEY AND RAY J . WAYRYNEN, a s members t h e r e o f , Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: '. \ , D i s t r i c t q o u r t of t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable -. .-. . _ bvr H. F a l l , Judge p r e s i d i n g . ? ~ u ~ ~ s E J . !Record. ~ .--~o : For Appellant: \. ' a G a r l i n g t o n , Lohn and Robi-nson Sherman V. Lohn and Lawrence Missoula, Montana. M i s s o u l a , Montana. Daly a r g u e d , '. Amicus C u r i a e S c o t t P. Crampton and G i l b e r t E . Andrews, Washington, D. C. Bruce I. Kogan a r g u e d , Washingtori, D. C. For Respondents: Poore, McKenzie & Roth, B u t t e , Montana. Robert A. Poore a r g u e d , B u t t e , Montans. J e n e B e l l appeased, Helena, Montana . Submitted: Decided: Filed : 1 NOV-mber 27, 1972 ; $ l ,(i h r . J u s t i c e WesLey C a s t l e s d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinjon o f t h e Court. T h i s i s an a p p e a l from a judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of the Cilst: j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , county of Lewis and C l a r k . I n February and March 1971, p l a i n t i f f P e t e r Kiewit s o n s ' Cu. paid a t o t a l of $8,726.47 a s g r o s s r e c e i p t s t a x payments i n compliance w i t h Chapter 35, T i t l e 84, R.C.M. 1947. A t t h e same t i m e , p l a i n t i f f a l s o f i l e d l e t t e r s of p r o t e s t w i t h defendant S t a t e Board of E q u a l i z a t i o n c h a l l e n g i n g t h e v a l i d i t y of t h e p u b l i c c u n t r a c t o r s ' l i c e n s e a c t and demanded r e f u n d of t h e payments. Within s i x t y days p l a i n t i f f proceeded t o b r i n g an a c t i o n i n he d i s t r i c t c o u r t s e e k i n g t o have Chapter 35, T i t l e 8 4 , R.C.M. 1947, d e c l a r e d i n v i o l a t i o n of t h e laws and C o n s t i t u t i o n of t h e s t a t e of Montana and t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n of t h e United S t a t e s , t o o b t a i n r e f u n d of a l l t a x e s and f e e s r e m i t t e d t o t h e s t a t e of Xontana under t h e c h a p t e r i n q u e s t i o n . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t , s i t t i n g w i t h o u t a j u r y , found t h e prov i s i o n s of Chapter 35, T i t l e 84, R.C.M. 1947, d i d n o t v i o l a t e t h e laws o r C o n s t i t u t i o n of Montana n o r t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n of t h e United S t a t e s . Judgment was e n t e r e d f o r d e f e n d a n t . Plaintiff f i l e d motions t o amend t h e f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i c n s of Law and f o r a new t r i a l , which were denied by t h e t r i a l c o u r t . From t h e judgment and o r d e r denying t h o s e motions, p l a i n t i f f appeals. I n a d d i t i o n t o b r i e f s and argument i n t h i s Court by c o u n s e l t o r che p a r t i e s , a b r i e f and o r a l argument was p r e s e n t e d by t h e United S t a t e s government a s amicus c u r i a e i n s u p p o r t of p l a i n t i f f ' s position. W f e e l a t t h i s p o i n t t h a t a b r i e f h i s t o r y of t h e Act i n e q u e s t i o n would b e h e l p f u l . Chapter 35, T i t l e 84, R.C.M, l e g i s l a t u r e i n 1935. The i n i t i a l v e r s i o n of what became 1947, was passed by t h e Montana I t r e q u i r e d t h e l i c e n s i n g by t h e s t a t e of d e a l i n g w i t h t h e s t a t e o r any of i t s p o l i t i c a l subJ i - v i s i o n s ; f e d e r a l c o n t r a c t o r s were excluded from t h e Act, In ;.larch 1965, in a n at'iemyt t o e n s u r e t h e payment of s t a r e and l o c a l t a x e s by c o n t r a c t o r s working i n t h e s t a t e , Chapter 2 7 7 , L a w s 1965, was passed by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e . The problem a r o s e because some c o n t r a c t o r s working i n t h e s t a t e d i d n o t r e p o r t a l l of t h e i r equipment t o county t a x a s s e s s o r s , who were a t t e m p t i n g t o impose ~ u u n t yp r o p e r t y t a x on t h o s e contractors, A l s o , some c o n t r a c t o r s working i n t h e s t a t e would n o t f i l e c o r p o r a t e o r p e r s o n a l income t a x r e t u r n s which would have f a i r l y r e f l e c t e d t h e i r b u s i n e s s p r o f i t s from w i t h i n t h e s t a t e . Chapter 2 7 7 , Laws 1965, imposed a I%t a x upon g r o s s r e c e i p t s (3)' a l l nonresident public contractors operating within the s t a t e . I n A p r i l 1965, t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of Chapter 277, Laws 1965, w a s r a i s e d t o t h i s Court and t h e Court found i t t o be u n r e a s o n a b l e d i s c r i m i n a t i o n and r u l e d i t u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l . S t a t e ex r e l . Schultz- Lindsay v . Board of E q u a l i z a t i o n , 145 Mont. 380, 403 P. 2d 635. I n 1967, t h e Montana l e g i s l a t u r e a g a i n attempted t o work o u t a s o l u t i o n t o t h e problem of c o n t r a c t o r s n o t paying t h e i r taxes. That l e g i s l a t u r e e n a c t e d a revenue e n f o r c i n g measure de- signed t o o p e r a t e hand i n hand w i t h ~ o n t a n a ' sl o n g - s t a n d i n g p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y t a x and income t a x , t o e n s u r e more e f f e c t i v e t a x c o l l e c - t i o n and reduce t a x avoidance. I t t h e n passed an amendment t o :hi< 1935 l i c e n s i n g a c t whicll r e q u i r e d a 1% a x upon a l l r e c e i - p t s t of p u b l i c c o n t r a c t o r s i n t h e s t a t e , i n c l u d i n g both r e s i d e n t and n o n r e s i d e n t c o n t r a c t o r s , c o v e r i n g a l l p u b l i c works w i t h i n t h e s t a t e i n c l u d i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n done by t h e United S t a t e s government. The revenue e n f o r c i n g measure was e n a c t e d i n an a t t e m p t t o r e q u i r e some of t h e c o n t r a c t o r s working i n t h e s t a t e t o meet t h e i r Cax r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . The mechanics of t h e measure a r e b e s t v~nderstoodb y t a k i n g , a s an example, t h e Kiewit c o n t r a c t f o r p a r t 31 1 t h e >fontma Libby D m p r o j e c t . a The c o n t r a c t was g i v e n t o Xiewit because i t was t h e lowest r e s p o n s i b l e b i d d e r . The con- i:ractor t h e n e n t e r e d on t h e performance of i t s c o n t r a c t and a s t h e work progressed i t r e c e i v e d payments from t h e landowner. It paid L;L of &,uch r e c e i p r s t-o t h e a t a t e Goaid of Eq1.ializati.cn. I n such of approximately 6.4 m i l l i o n ndnner Kiewit has p a i d o r w i l l pay 1% d o l l a r s o r about $64,000 t o t h e S t a t e Board of E q u a l i z a t i o n , This fund i s h e l d t o t h e c r e d i t of i < i e v ~ i t an a c c o u n t i n g on .,ysi:d~n adopted by t h e S t a t e Board. The Act o p e r a t e s i n t h e n a t u r e ~f a w i t h h o l d i n g o r prepayment program f o r Montana p r o p e r t y and income t a x e s . I n t h i s c a s e , Kiewit h a s s u f f i c i e n t items of heavy equipment working on t h e job a t Libby t o i n c u r and pay a p e r s o n a l p r # ~ p e r t ya x of $35,803.22. t 8do:lar Kiewit i s e n t i t l e d t o a d o l l a r f o r c r e d i t and a c t u a l refund f o r such p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y t a x e s k r o m i t s fund c r e a t e d with t h e S t a t e Eoard i n 1971 by i t s payment ~f t h e 1% r o s s r e c e i p t s t a x . g So any time i n 1971, a f t e r having p z i d t h e p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y t a x e s Kiewit c o u l d , upon showing proof ~f such payments of p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y t a x e s , r e c e i v e a refund of r h c payments o u t of t h e 1% r o s s r e c e i p t s t a x . g Not only could K i e w i t o b t a i n r e f u n d s of p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y t a x e s p a i d i n L i n c o l n S o ~ n t y t t h e job s i t e , b u t could a l s o have t h e same b e n e f i t s f o r a a n y p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y t a x e s p a i d by i t t h a t y e a r , a n p ~ h e r ei n Pion tana . Payments on t h e job and t h e c o r o l l a r y 1% a x t h e r e o n may t ~ ~ s ,nure r a p i d l y than p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y t a x e s a r e due o r may u ~ e zxceed t h e amount of such t a x e s . I n t h a t e v e n t , t h e remainder of the 1%fund t o t h e c o n t r a c t o r ' s c r e d i t a t t h e S t a t e Board may be used t o pay, d o l l a r f o r d o l l a r , t h e c o n t r a c t o r ' s income t a x e s . Lf r e f u n d s of t h e p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y t a x e s have n o t consilmed t h e 1% r o s s r e c e i p t s t a x payments t o t h e S t a t e Board, t h e c o n t r a c t o r g can t a k e d o l l a r f o r d o l l a r c r e d i t d i r e c t l y a g a i n s t h i s t a x f o r the b a l a n c e of g r o s s r e c e i p t s t a x s t i l l remaining t o h i s c r e d i t at t h e S t a t e Board. 'Mr~eret h e r e i s heavy equipment s u b j e c t t o p r o p e r t y t a x and/ or r i e i income t a x on a job and t h e taypayer c l a i m s t h e r e f u n d s o r credits, t h e g r o s s r e c e i p t s t a x washes i t s e l f o u t . The A c t , a s can be seen from t h e c r e d i t s procedure, was i n t e n d e d a s an i n c e n t i v e t o p u b l i c c o n t r a c t o r s t o d e c l a r e t h e i r items of p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y Cer taxation. I t a l s o encourages c o n t r a c t o r s t o more f a i r l y a l l o c a t e o u t - o f - s t a t e home o f f i c e overhead expenses, i n p a r t a t l e a s t , t o Montana. I t i s t r u e t h a t t h e Act i n p r a c t i c e t o d a t e h a s n o t r e s u l t e d in .A totrai - s h o u t of t h e 1% r o s s r e c e i p t s payments, g It does appear t h a t one of t h e r e a s o n s f o r t h i s f a i l u r e i s t h a t t h e f e d e r a l government h a s i n s e r t e d a c l a u s e i n some of t h e f e d e r a l c o n t r a c t s which p r o h i b i t s a c o n t r a c t o r from t a k i n g t h e r e f u n d s and c r e d i t s a v a i l a b l e t o him. Such a c l a u s e was i n t h e c o n t r a c t Kiewit had w i t h t h e f e d e r a l government. Clause 5 8 ( f ) of t h a t contract reads: "The Act (R.C.IJI., 1947, s e c . 55-3514) a l l o w s t h e l i c e n s e f e e based on g r o s s r e c e i p t s t o be used a s a c r e d i t on: (I) t h e C o n t r a c t o r ' s c o r p o r a t i o n l i c e n s e t a x (R.C.M. , 1947, T i t l e 84, Chapter 15) o r on C o n t r a c t o r ' s income t a x (R.C.M., 1947, T i t l e 84, Chapter 4 9 ) , depending upon t h e t y p e of t a x t h e Cont r a c t o r ( o r s u b c o n t r a c t o r ) i s r e q u i r e d t o pay under t h e laws of t h e S t a t e of Montana; and ( 2 ) p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y t a x e s p a i d i n Montana on p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y of t h e C o n t r a c t o r ( o r s u b c o n t r a c t o r ) which i s used i n t h e b u s i n e s s of t h e C o n t r a c t o r and i s l o c a t e d w i t h i n t h e ,State. The C o n t r a c t o r , and. i n t u r n , t h e s u b c o n t r a c t o r s w i l l n o t t a k e advantage of t h e s e c r e d i t s . " (Emphasis added). T h i s p r o h i b i t i o n by t h e f e d e r a l government i s of n e c e s s i t y p a r t of t h e r e a s o n t h e r e i s a s u r p l u s of t h e revenue of t h e g r o s s receipts tax. As f o r o t h e r r e a s o n s why t h e Act i s n o t a t o t a l wash i t e m , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , upon h e a r i n g t h e e v i d e n c e , found t h a t some of the c o n t r a c t o r s were n o t aware of t h e c r e d i t a v a i l a b l e t o them and some were simply i n d i - f f e r e n t t o t h e u s e of t h e i r c r e d i t s , In i t s f i n d i n g of f a c t No, 1 7 , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t s a i d : I '-1. -L That t h e p r e s e n t r e s i d u e of t a x w i t h t h e S t a t e Board o r S t a t e of Montana i s n o t f a i r l y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of how t h e t a x i s l i k e l y t o o p e r a t e i n f u t u r e y e a r s , 11 4b 4b -18b There has been n o t h i n g p r e s e n t e d t o t h i s Court on a p p e a l which would change t h e f i n d i n g of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t and i t i s c l e a r t h a t t h i s Act i s i n t e n d e d t o o p e r a t e a s a revenue e n f o r c i n g A p p e l l a n t ' s p r i n c i p a l argument i s t h a t a t a x which i s placed s o l e l y on p u b l i c c o n t r a c t o r s i s d i s c r i m i n a t o r y . I t main- t a i n s t h e only d i f f e r e n c e between p u b l i c c o n t r a c t o r s and p r i v a t e c o n t r a c t o r s i s t h e s t a t u s of t h e p a r t y f o r whom t h e c o n t r a c t o r i s working. Such a d i f f e r e n c e , i n a p p e l l a n t ' s view, i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t t o j u s t i f y t h e imposj-tion of t h e t a x , + Since t h a t was t h e same p o i n t r a i s e d i n Schultz-Lindsay, a review of t h a t d e c i s i o n w i l l g i v e u s a view of Montana law on t h e i s s u e of t a x d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . There, we s t a t e d t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t u r e may impose a l i c e n s e t a x on c e r t a i n occupations and n o t on o t h e r s , a s long a s Il a r b i t r a r y and unreasonable c l a s s i f i - cations" a r e not permitted. Schultz-Lindsay p . 398. I n Schultz-Lindsay a t p. 390, t h e Court c i t i n g S t a t e v , Sunburst Refining Co., 73 Mont. 68, 235 P. 428, s t a t e d t h a t i n making such c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s : "'Equal p r o t e c t i o n of t h e law i s seldom, i f e v e r , o b t a i n e d ; and because of t h e v e r y f r a i l t y of human agencies, the a u t h o r i t i e s a l l recognize the r i g h t of t h e l e g i s l a t i v e branch of government t o make r e a s o n a b l e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s a £ sulnjects f o r p r o p e r t y : and i f t h e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o r occupation t a x e s y i s r e a s o n a b l e , and i f a l l of t h e s u b j e c t s w i t h i n a g i v e n c l a s s a r e accorded t h e same t r e a t m e n t , t h e 1 e g i . s l a t i o n cannot be s a i d t o deny t o anyone w i t h i n such c l a s s t h e e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n of t h e law, even though t h e burden imposed upon him may be more onerous than t h a t imposed upon a member of a n o t h e r c l a s s . [ C i t i n g c a s e s ] But t o j u s t i f y such d i s c r i m i n a t o r y l e g i s l a t i o n , and avoid t h e condemnation of t h e Fourt e e n t h Amendment t o t h e f e d e r a l C o n s t i t u t i o n , t h e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n must be r e a s o n a b l e - - - t h a t i s , must be based upon slabs t a n t i a l d i s t i n c t i o n s which r e a l l y make one c l a s s d i f f e r e n t from a n o t h e r . [ C i t i n g c a s e ] (Emphasis o u r s . ) "' * L a t e r i n t h e sane opinion a t p, 392, t h e Court s a i d : 11 1 The c o n s t i t u t i o n a l safeguard a g a i n s t u n j u s t d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i n l e g i s l a t i o n of t h i s t y p e i s w e l l d e f i n e d by t h e d e c i s i o n s everywhere, and t h a t i s , t h a t t h e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n must be r e a s o n a b l e , n o t a r b i t r a r y , and must r e s t upon some ground of d i f f e r ence having a f a i r and s u b s t a n t i a l r e l a t i o n t o t h e o b j e c t of t h e 3 - e g i s l a t i o n , s o t h a t a l l persons s i m i l a r l y circumstanced s h a l l be t r e a t e d a l i k e . M i l v. S t a t e Board of Equalizati.sn, 97 Mont. 113, 31', 33 2d 563.' (Emphasis d u r s . ) " The s t a t e h a s t h e d u t y and a u t h o r i t y t o levy t a x e s . Such i s r e q u i r e d i n t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n ; however, S e c t i o n I1 of A r t . X I I ~ it h e Ibiontaiud i;ons'iitt~ii.on r e q u i r e s t h a t such ;:axes s h a l l a l s o . 1 5 tlniform upon t h e c l a s s w i t h i n t h e t a x i n g a u t h o r i - t y . x Inter- ;;ieting t h a t s e c t i o n of t h e Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n i n S c h u l t z 5 - n d s a y a t p . 393, t h i s Court s a i d : , s t a t i n g t h e p r i n c i p l e of s e c t i o n s 1 and 11 i n d i f f e r e n t form, t h e mandatory i n j u n c t i o n t o t h e Legisl a t u r e i s t h a t i t s h a l l p r e s c r i b e such uniform mode of zssessment a s s h a l l s e c u r e a j u s t v a l u a t i o n of a l l :axable p r o p e r t y , t h a t a l l t a x e s s h a l l be l e v i e d and ,:ollected by g e n e r a l laws and f o r p u b l i c purposes o n l y , dnd t h a t t h e y s h a l l be uniform upon t h e same c l a s s of p r o p e r t y wi.thin t h e t e r r i t o r i a l l i m i t s of t h e a u t h o r i t y l e v y i n g t h e t a x . This i s t h e r u l e of u n i f o r m i t y d e c l a r e d ' ~ y our C o n s t i ~ u t i o n ,i f w e a r e a b l e t o determine t h e i n t e n t i o n of i t s framers a r i g h t . " r t 1 Itor ''We thinlc i t w i l l be admitted t h a t any t a x a g a i n s t t h e jame kind of p r o p e r t y used f o r i d e n t i c a l purposes i s n o t uniform when a d i f f e r e n t v a l u a t i o n and a d i f f e r e n t ratre 's a p p l i e d t o two d i s t i n c t t a y p a y e r s , s e p a r a t e l y d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e o n l y i n name, and t h e t a x b e i n g imposed by t h e e same t a x i n g d i s t r i c t . W f u r t h e r b e l i e v e i t w i l l be ~ d m i t t e dt h a t such d i s r e g z r d of t h e uniform c l a u s e of i e c t i o n s 1 and 1 of A r t i c l e X I I , s u p r a , c o n s t i t u t e s 1 c l e a r discrimination."' (Emphasis t h e i r s ) . In Schultz-Lindsay i t i s c i e a r t h e s t a t e had d i s c r i m i n a t e d i l ~ s cn o n r e s i d e n t t a x p a y e r s doing p u b l i c work. A l l contractors doing p u b l i c work were n o t t r e a t e d i n a f a i r manner as t h e r e was n d b a s i s t o make t h e d i s t i n c t i o n between r e s i d e n t and n o n r e s i d e n t public contractors. That i-s n o t t h e s i t u a t i o n h e r e , because a l l p u b l i c c o n t r a c t o r s a r e now t r e a t e d e q u a l l y , a l l a r e taxed on 1% of t h e i r gross r e c e i p t s . There i s a c l a s s of t a x p a y e r s , p u b l i c c o n t r a c t o r s , and t h a t c l a s s comes under t h e s p e c i a l t a x e n f o r c i n g !rleasure of t h e Act. This s i t u a t i o n i s c l e a r l y d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from t h e Schultz-Lindsay s i t u a t i o n . W do n o t r e a d t h e law t o e r e q u i r e a l l c o n t r a c t o r s t o be taxed i n an i d e n t i c a l manner, only t h a c members of a c l a s s be given t h e same tax t r e a t m e n t . I t i s t r u e t:hat t h e p r i v a t e c o n t r a c t o r does n o t have t h e #5ame revenue e n f o r c i n g measure t h a t t h e p u b l i c c o n t r a c t o r h a s , 5ur, 1t even though t h e burden imposed upon him may be more onerous chan t h a t imposed upon a member of a n o t h e r c l a s s " , t h a t does n o t v i o l a t e the c a s t i t u t i o n a l s a f e g u a r d s if t h e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i s justified. Schultz-Lindsay, p. 390. Montana z a s e l a w has e s t a b l i s h e c l t h a t t h e L e g i s l a t u r e may rncike : L a s s i f i c a t i o n s hoiltana. b e upheld, f o r t a x purposes on d i f f e r e n t i n d u s t r i e s i n As long a s t h e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i s r e a s o n a b l e , i t w i l l Quong Wing v . K i r k e n d a l l , 39 Mont. 64, 101 P. 250; ,~ilacondaCopper Mining Co. v . Junod, 7 1 Mont. 132, 227 P. 1001; d a l e v. County T r e a s u r e r of Mineral C o , , 82 Mont, 9 8 , 265 P. 6 ; Norum v . Ohio O i l Co., 83 Fiont. 353, 272 I?. Our q u e s t i o n now i s - - - i s 534. i t r e a s o n a b l e t o make a c l a s s i f i - cation f o r t a x purposes f o r c o n t r a c t o r s doing p u b l i c work and n o t f o r c o n t r a c t o r s doing p r i v a t e work? A t t r i a l , respondent S t a t e Board s t r e s s e d t h e d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e two t y p e s of c o n t r a c t o r s i n t h i s manner: 1, A p u b l i c work i s i n t e n d e d f o r t h e u s e of t h e p u b l i c and i f t h e work i s i n a d e q u a t e i n some p a r t i c u l a r way, t h i s could (2xpose and would expose some p a r t of t h e p u b l i c a t l a r g e t o d a n g e r , inconvenience, o r i n j u s t i c e . That of c o u r s e would n o t be always t r u e i n t h e c a s e of a p r i v a t e c o n t r a c t o r , 2. P u b l i c c o n t r a c t o r s must be e x p e r i e n c e d , t h e y must e s t a b l i s h t h e i r q u a l i f i c a t i o n s t o t h e s t a t e o r f e d e r a l governn~efit, However, p r i v a t e p r o p e r t y owners c o u l d engage a l i c e n s e d o r u n l i c e n s e d c o n t r a c t o r o r an experienced o r i n e x p e r i e n c e d one. 3. P u b l i c c o n t r a c t o r s i n v a r i a b l y must provide a bond, P r i v a t e worlcs r e q u i r e bonds only a t t h e e l e c t i o n of t h e owner. 4, P u b l i c works normally would i n v o l v e e l a b o r a t e , p r o f e s - s i ( j n a l 1 y drawn p l a n s and s p e c i f i c a t i o n s . aandatory supervision o r inspection. They would a l s o i n c l u d e P r i v a t e works would have such i n s p e c t i o n a n d / o r s u p e r v i s i o n a t t h e o p t i o n of t h e owner. A p p e l l a n t a r g u e s t h a t a l l of t h e above mentioned a r e a s a r e a l s o normally i n c l u d e d i n any p r i v a t e c o n t r a c t i n g job i n t h e ;a t e ; t ivc t h e r e f o r e , t h e r e i s no j u s t i f i c a t i o n of t h e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . do noc a g r e e . It may be t r u e t h a t p r i v a t e c o n t r a c t o r s w i l l cdke many of t h e sane p r e c a u t i o n s r e q u i r e d by t h e s t a t e o r f e d e r a l government, b u t t h e p o i n t i s t h a t when d e a l i n g w i t h p u b l i c works t h e s e p r e c a u t i o n s must be t a k e n . People of t h e s t a t e have a right LO make sure c h a t a b u i l d i n g b u i l t w i t h t h e i r money i s s a f e and t h a t t h e c o n t r a c t o r i s q u a l i f i e d i n a l l r e s p e c t s . For khis r e a s o n i t i s c l e a r how t h e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n can be made--f o r t h e p r o t e c t i o n of t h e p u b l i c good, The duty of a c o n t r a c t o r i s t o t h e person paying t h e b i l l , i n t h e c a s e of a p u b l i c cont r a c t o r i t i s t h e taxpayer. met, I n o r d e r t o e n s u r e t h a t t h e duty i s t h e s t a t e can and does d e a l w i t h p u b l i c c o n t r a c t o r s i n a d i f f e r e n t way t h a n p r i v a t e c o n t r a c t o r s . Because of t h i s b a s i c d i f f e r e n c e , t h e r e i s no r e a s o n why t h e y cannot be taxed i n a d i f f e r e n t manner, a s long a s a l l i n t h e same c l a s s a r e t r e a t e d equally. I n Quong Wing v , K i r d e n d a l l , 39 Mont. 64, 6 9 , 101 P , 250, t h e Court s a i d : It The C o n s t i t u t i o n g i v e s t h e power t o impose a l i c e n s e t a x upon p e r s o n s doing b u s i n e s s i n t h i s a ,, ,, " The l e g i s l a t u r e i s n o t r e q u i r e d t o ,. !:ax a 1 1 occupations e q u a l l y o r uniformly. ; : \ \ f I f t h e c o n s t i t u e n t s of each c l a s s a r e a f f e c t e d 3 l i k e , t h e r u l e of e q u a l i t y p r e s c r i b e d by t h e c a s e s i s s a t i s f i e d , I n o t h e r words, t h e law " o p e r a t e s e q u a l l y and uniformly upon a l l persons i n s i m i l a r c i r c u m s t a n c e s 11 1 1 1 -1- -1- . What could be more uniform t h a n r e q u i r i n g a l l p u b l i c c o n t r a c t o r s t o pay t h i s t a x , a l l members of t h e c l a s s a r e t r e a t e d a l i k e . The United S t a t e s Supreme Court h a s g i v e n t h e s t a t e s g r e a t 1 - a t i t u d e and freedom t o e f f e c t t a x c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s , a s long a s they a r e not a r b i t r a r y o r capricious. Kentucky, 217 U,S. 563, 30 S.Ct. I n Brown-Forman Co. v. 578, 54 L ed 883, 887, t h e s m t e of Kentucky l e v i e d a 1 114 c e n t p e r g a l l o n t a x on every c o r p o r a t i o n o r i n d i v i d u a l engaged i n t h e b u s i n e s s of compounding, r e c t i f y i n g , a d u l t e r a t i n g o r blending d i s t i l l e d s p i r i t s . Corporate o r i n d i v i d u a l d i s t i l l e r s of pure o r u n a d u l t e r a t e d s p i r i t s were not s o taxed. A producer of blended s p i r i t s brought an a c t i o n stating t h e t a x was discrimi-natory. I n upholding t h e s t a t e ' s power t o t a x , t h e United S t a t e s Supreme Court s a i d : I1 A v e r y wide d i s c r e t i o n must be conceded t o t h e l e g i s l a t i v e power of t h e s t a t e i n the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n 3f t r a d e s , c a l l i n g s , b u s i n e s s e s o r o c c u p a t i o n s which nay be s u b j e c t e d t o s p e c i a l forms of r e g u l a t i o n o r t a x a t i o n through an e x c i s e o r l i c e n s e t a x . I f the selection or classification i s neither ~ a p r i c i o u sn o r a r b i t r a r y , and r e s t s upon some r e a s o n a b l e c o n s i d e r a t i o n of d i f f e r e n c e o r p o l i c y , t h e r e i s no d e n i a l of t h e e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n of che law, 1 1 W b e l i e v e t h a t a d i s t i n c t i o n between p u b l i c and p r i v a t e e c o n t r a c t o r s i-s n o t a r b i t r a r y o r c a p r i c i o u s and f o l l o w i n g t h e r e a s o n i n g of t h e United S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t - - - t h e statle of Moiitana h a s t h e power t o make such a d i s t i n c t i o n and t h e s t a t u t e i n question i s not unconstitutional. The second h a l f of t h e d i s c r i m i n a t i o n q u e s t i o n r a i s e d by appellant i s t h a t t h i s tax discriminates against the federal I t u r g e s t h a t t h e s t a t e of Montana i s r e q u i r e d t o juvernment. t r e a t t h e United S t a t e s and o t h e r p u b l i c b o d i e s a s w e l l a s i t ,:Teats p r i v a t e nongovernmental p a r t i e s . A p p e l l a n t contends r a n t i n g a p r e f e r r e d t a x s t a t u s t o a s u b s t a n t i a l number of t a x p a y e r s , c o n t r a c t o r s performing work f o r p r i v a t e owners, and f a i l i n g t o g r a n t a comparable s t a t u s t o construction c o n t r a c t o r s of t h e United S t a t e s , c o n s t i t u t e s u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n a g a i n s t t h e United S t a t e s and t h o s e w i t h whom i t d e a l s . I n response t o t h i s argument, respondent Board c o n t e n d s , b < i s i c a i l y , t h a t s i n c e t h e s t a t e of Kontana i s t r e a t e d i n t a x .ua!:ters w i t h p u b l i c c o n t r a c t o r s t h e same a s t h e f e d e r a l government i - s t r e a t e d , t h e r e i s no d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . Counsel f o r b o t h p a r t i e s cite i n s u p p o r t P h i l l i p s Chemical Co. v . Dumas School D i s t r i c t , '361 U . S . 376, 80 S e c t . 474, 4 L ed 2d 384, 391, and Floses Lake l-lones v . Grant County, 365 U.S. 744, 8 1 S.Ct. 570, 6 L ed 2d 66. I n P h i l l i p s Chemical Co., t h e s t a t e of Texas l e v i e d a t a x J L ~ l e a s e s where t h e United S t a t e s government was t h e l e s s o r , b u t ' d i d n o t provide f o r such a t a x where t h e s t a t e of Texas was t h e he c o u r t found 1:his t y p e of t a x a t i o n was d i s c r i m i n a t t n g !-essore i g a i n s t t h e f e d e r a l government and t h e r e f o r e i n v a l i d . The c o u r t - i t does n o t seem too much t o r e q u i r e t h a t t h e S t a t e t r e a t t h o s e v7ho d e a l w i t h t h e Government I I ;k -t. -. 1 4, 2 s w e l l a s i t t r e a t s t h o s e w i t h whom i t d e a l s i t s e l f . f1 I n Moses Lake Homes, t h e s t a t e of Washington sought t o t a x l e a s e h o l d i n t e r e s t s wherein t h e f e d e r a l government w a s t h e l e s s o r a t a h i g h e r r a t e than i t t a x e d l e a s e h o l d i n t e r e s t s where t h e s t a t e of Washington was t h e l e s s o r . The c o u r t s t a t e d t h a t Moses Lake Homes was i n d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from P l ~ i l l i p sChemical Co. and r u l e d t h a t a t a x wbtch d i s c r i m i n a t e d a g a i n s t t h e f e d e r a l government was invalid. Here, we do n o t b e l i e v e t h a t t h e s t a t e of Montana h a s d i s c r i m i n a t e d a g a i n s t t h e f e d e r a l government, The f e d e r a l govern- ment i s b e i n g t r e a t e d i n t h e same manner a s t h e s t a t e of Montana t r e a t s i t s e l f and i t s s u b d i v i s i o n s o r m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , The o n l y d i s c r i m i n a t i o n t h e f e d e r a l government can c l a i m i.s t h a t p r i v a t e c o n t r a c t o r s a r e n o t paying t h e same t a x a s p u b l i c c o n t r a c t o r s . However, a c c o r d i n g t o c a s e law, a l l t h e United S t a t e s Supreme Court h a s r e q u i r e d i s t h a t t h e s t a t e does n o t g i v e i t s e l f s p e c i a l t r e a t m e n t over t h a t r e c e i v e d by t h e f e d e r a l government. The Act involved h e r e t r e a t s t h e federal. government i n t h e same manner a s i t t r e a t s t h o s e who d e a l w i t h any p a r t of t h e s t a t e government, The second h a l f of t h e d i s c r i m i n a t i o n q u e s t i o n i s d e n i e d . A p p e l l a n t and amicus c u r i a e a r g u e t h a t t h e Act i s i n v a l i d because i t r e s u l t s i n i n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h f e d e r a l government funct i o n s and i s i n c o n f l i c t w i t h f e d e r a l procurement l e g i s l a t i o n . T h e r e f o r e , i t v i o l a t e s t h e supremacy c l a u s e of t h e United S t a t e s Constitution. T h e i r b a s i s f o r such argument i s t h a t our l i c e n s i n g s t a t u t e g i v e s Montana t h e power of review a s t o whether o r n o t a c o n t r a c t o r can o p e r a t e w i t h i n Montana, even i f h e h a s a l r e a d y been awarded a p u b l i c c o n t r a c t . A 1 1 p a r t i e s c i t e M i l l e r v. Arkansas, 352 U.S. 187, 77 S e c t , 257, 1 L ed 2d 231, There, Arkansas had a l i c e n s i n g s t a t u t e s i m i l a r t o t h e one i n q u e s t i o n h e r e which allowed t h e s t a t e t o review c o n t r a c t o r s who had been awarded p u b l i c c o n t r a c t s , i n c l u d i n g f e d e r a l c o n t r a c t s , a s t o t h e i r f i t n e s s t o perform t h e work. Under t h e a u t h o r i t y of t h a t s t a t u t e , t h e s t a t e brought an a c t i o n a g a i n s t a c o n t r a c t o r awarded a f e d e r a l c o n t r a c t because t h a t c o n t r a c t o r was riot Licensed in riricansas, In reviewixng t h e case, t h e United S t a t e s Supreme Court held si-npl-y t h a t t h e s t a t u t e was n o t a p p l i c a b l e t o c o n t r a c t o r s working on f e d e r a l government contracts. W do n o t f i n d t h e United S t a t e s Supreme Court s t a t e d e + h a t such Arkansas s t a t u t e was u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p e r s e . I t only s ~ a t e d h a t t h e s t a t e does n o t have t h e power t o review f e d e r a l t contractors as to t h e i r fitness. Here, we h o l d , a s d i d t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , t h a t t h e p r o v i , i o n s of t h e Act which p e r t a i n t o q u a l i f i c a t i o n s o r competence ,,f p u b l i c c o n t r a c t o r s i s n o t a p p l i c a b l e t o f e d e r a l c o n t r a c t o r s . The q u a l i f i c a t i o n s t e s t of t h e Act remains i n f o r c e i n r e g a r d t o c o n i x a c t o r s working on s t a t e c o n t r a c t s , and t h e g r o s s r e c e i p t s t a x w i l l remain i n f o r c e a s t o a l l p u b l i c c o n t r a c t o r s performing work i n Montana. F i n a l l y , i t i s argued t h a t t h i s Act v i o l a t e s t h e immunity 0 2 t h e f e d e r a l government from t a x a t i o n o r t h e economic impact of t a x a t ~ i o n . I t h a s been e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t a s t a t e cannot t a x i:ne f e d e r a l government. But, t h e s t a t e can t a x an independent c o n t r a c t o r f o r t h e p r i v i l e g e of doing work w i t h i n t h e s t a t e . The United S t a t e s Supreme Court decided t h a t p o i n t i n James v . Dravo C o n t r a c t i n g Co., 302 U.S. 134, 58 S.Ct. 208, 8 2 L. ed 155, 1 6 6 , 173. I n James, t h e p l a i n t i f f was a c o n t r a c t o r domiciled i n Penns y l v a ~ x i a . A s an independent c o n t r a c t o r i t had f o u r c o n s t r u c t i o n c d n t r a c t s w i t h t h e f e d e r a l government f o r t h e b u i l d i n g of l o c k s and dams i n t h e Kanawha River and Ohio River w i t h i n t h e s t a t e of !&lestV i r g i n i a . West Virgi-nj.a had a s t a c u t e known a s t h e g r o s s 8,dles and income t a x law which provided f o r annual and p r i v i l e g e taxes on c o n t r a c t o r s dohg b u s i n e s s i n the s t a t e of West V i r g i n i a . The t a x was 2% of t h e g r o s s income of t h e c o n t r a c t o r w i t h i n t h e scate. Such t a x was i n a d d i t i o n t o a l l o t h e r s t a t e t a x e s . c w r t was faced w i t h t h i s problem: ground t h a t 1.o j.t The II I s t h e t a x i n v a l i d upon t h e l a y s a d i r e c t burden upon t h e F e d e r a l ~ o v e r n m e n t ? " t h a t q u e s t i o n t h e c o u r t answered: , I ;y : the W e s t V i r g i n i a t a x ; ; ; 2 does n o t i n t e r f e r e f-n any s u l > s t a n t i a l way w i t h t h e performance of t h e f e d e r a l f u n c t i o n s and i s a v a l i d e x a c t i o n . 11 -?- fb lhe 12oux-L ~11enwent on t o p o i n t o u t t h a t t h e economic impact uptjn t h e f e d e r a l government must be d i r e c t and s u b s t a n t i a l and t h a t the 2% g r o s s t a x was n e i t h e r d i r e c t n o r s u b s t a n t i a l , 3 v. For f u r t h e r d i s c u s s i o n of t h i s r a t i o n a l e , s e e S i l a s Mason Co. S t a t e Tax Commission, 188 Wash. 98, 61 P.2d 1269. Following t h e r e a s o n i n g of t h e United S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t , we f i r t d t h e t a x involved h e r e was n o t aimed a t n o r does i t impede t h e f e d e r a l government i n performing i t s f u n c t i o n s . I f there i s any burden on t h e f e d e r a l government, i t i s i n d i r e c t and not substantial. The t a x i s v a l i d . The judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s a f f i r m e d , k s s o c a e Justice , I Chief J u s t i c e i 1 A s s ciate ~ u s t i c k s .

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.