1. When the question is involved in a claim of right under the
Federal Constitution, this Court must decide for itself whether a
state tax is a property or a privilege tax. P.
283 U. S.
62.
2. A Minnesota statute requiring registration of motor vehicles,
display of number plates, etc., provides that the vehicles shall be
privileged to use the public streets and highways upon payment of
specified annual rates, which are in lieu of all other taxes
thereon except wheelage taxes by municipalities, and which are
measured generally by cost of vehicle less allowance for
depreciation, a minimum, however, being fixed for cars of certain
weights.
Held that the tax is a privilege tax. P.
283 U. S.
62.
3. As applied to an army officer, claiming to be a nonresident
of the state, who resides on a federal military reservation in
Minnesota and has registered his car and acquired a license and
license plates therefor under and pursuant to regulations enforced
on the reservation by its commandant, the tax does not violate the
equal protection clause either (a) because the statute exempts
residents from payment of property taxes on their cars or (b)
because it allows residents of other states or countries, whose
cars have been registered at home and bear the home license plates,
to operate them on Minnesota highways for a time without paying the
tax. P.
283 U. S.
62.
180 Minn. 241, 230 N.W. 572, affirmed.
Appeal from a judgment sustaining a motor vehicle tax. The
proceeding was begun by a notice of the tax with demand for
payment. Judgment was entered on this and the taxpayer's
answer.
Page 283 U. S. 59
MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court.
By chapter 57 of the General Laws of Minnesota of 1889, that
state ceded to the United States jurisdiction of the territory
constituting the Ft. Snelling Military Reservation, which lies
entirely within the boundaries of Minnesota, immediately adjacent
to the city limits of Minneapolis and St. Paul. Its greatest length
from north to sough is three and three-quarters miles, and from
east to west two miles. The cession was upon condition that the
public highways across the reservation be kept open for public
traffic. Concurrent jurisdiction to serve process, civil and
criminal, of the state, and to arrest persons charged with offenses
against the laws of the state, was retained. There was no other
limitation.
The reservation is occupied by the military forces of the United
States, and, save as above noted, jurisdiction therein is exercised
by the federal government to the exclusion of the state.
The Constitution of Minnesota provides [
Footnote 1] that a member of the military forces of the
United States shall not be deemed a resident of the state as a
consequence of being stationed within its borders. It also grants
[
Footnote 2] to the legislature
power to tax motor vehicles using the public streets and highways
of the state on a more onerous basis than other personal property,
such tax to be in lieu of all other taxes thereon, except wheelage
taxes, so called, which may be imposed by any borough, city, or
village. Any such law may, in the discretion of the legislature,
provide for the exemption from taxation of any motor vehicle owned
by a nonresident transiently or temporarily using the streets and
highways of the state. The proceeds of such tax is to be paid into
the Trunk Highway Sinking Fund.
Page 283 U. S. 60
By virtue of this constitutional authority, the legislature
enacted a law providing for the imposition of a motor vehicle
registration tax. [
Footnote 3]
Pursuant to the statute, the secretary of state filed in the office
of the clerk of the District Court of Ramsey County a list of motor
vehicles on which the tax and penalty for 1929 appeared delinquent.
The appellant's automobile was included in the list. Appellant
filed answer to the notice, denying that any tax or penalty was due
the state; alleging that he was the sole owner of the vehicle, was
a nonresident of the State of Minnesota, a member of the military
forces of the United States quartered and resident upon the Ft.
Snelling Reservation, that the vehicle had not been operated for
hire, nor been present within the jurisdiction of Minnesota upon
its roads, highways, or streets, for any period of ten days, and
was never operated thereon, except as a visitor for brief
periods.
After averring that the reservation is solely under the control
of the United States, and that all governmental functions,
including police power, traffic control, and maintenance of
highways, are vested in and exercised by the commanding officer
under the laws of the United States, to the total exclusion of
control by the state, and that the reservation is no part of the
State of Minnesota, the answer states that the commanding officer
has created and maintains, pursuant to his powers, a complete
system of automobile registration, with rules and regulations, and
that the vehicle in question is duly registered under such laws and
regulations and has license plates and a registration certificate
issued by federal authority, which has at all times been carried.
It asserts appellant's willingness and ability to comply with all
the laws of Minnesota applicable to nonresidents who have occasion
to use its roads and streets, and that he has so notified the state
officials,
Page 283 U. S. 61
and has complied with all the traffic laws and regulations of
the state when operating upon its highways.
On appellee's motion, judgment was entered on the pleadings for
the tax and penalty. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court of Minnesota
affirmed the judgment. [
Footnote
4] The appellant brought the case to this Court, having at all
stages in the courts below asserted rights under the Fourteenth
Amendment, which were passed on and determined adversely to his
contentions. He claims that the tax in question is a property tax,
and that the state may not tax property located on the Ft. Snelling
Reservation. In the alternative, he says, if the act levies a
privilege tax, as applied to him, it deprives him of equal
protection of the laws by imposing upon him a greater burden than
that laid on residents of Minnesota or residents of neighboring
states.
The argument that the tax is one on property is founded on the
fact that it is measured by the cost of the motor car (less certain
annual allowances for depreciation), and that it is in lieu of all
other taxes thereon except wheelage taxes levied by municipalities.
[
Footnote 5] It is to be
remarked, however, that a minimum tax is prescribed for cars of
certain weights, irrespective of value; that the act levies the tax
on vehicles "using the public streets or highways in the state,"
and provides that they "shall be privileged to use the public
streets and highways on the basis and at the rates for each
calendar year as follows. . . ." [
Footnote 6]
The state court held that
"the license tax is both a property tax and a privilege tax. . .
. It is a property tax in the sense that it exempts the vehicle
licensed from other taxation as property. It is in lieu of other
taxes. But is is equally clear that it is a privilege tax. . . .
The character of a privilege tax extends to the whole tax. "
Page 283 U. S. 62
This Court, while bound by the state court's decision as to the
meaning and application of the law, decides for itself the
character of the tax, and whether as applied to the appellant it
affects his constitutional rights. We think it plain that the levy
is an excise for he privilege of using the highways.
It is denominated a privilege tax. The car cannot use the
highways unless it is paid. The statute contains the usual
provisions for registration, issuance, and display of number
plates, etc. [
Footnote 7]
Residents of other states who desire to use the highways for more
than the period specified in certain sections extending the
privilege must register their vehicles and pay the same tax as
residents of Minnesota. [
Footnote
8] The claim that the state is attempting to tax appellant's
property situate without its jurisdiction cannot be sustained.
Viewed as imposing a privilege tax, the statute is alleged to
discriminate against appellant in favor of residents because it
exempts vehicles licensed under it from payment of property taxes.
But the exemption is a proper and lawful one, and appellant cannot
make out a discrimination against him from the mere fact that he is
not in a position to claim it. Doubtless, in the case of every
taxing act which creates exemptions, there are those who cannot
bring themselves within the exempt class, but this does not deprive
them of the equal protection of the law.
Finally, appellant says the act accords certain privileges to
residents of neighboring states which are denied to him, and hence
the law operates unequally as against him. The section of the
statute to which he refers provides that vehicles owned by
nonresidents, properly registered in the country or state of the
owner and carrying license number plates of such state, are
authorized to use Minnesota
Page 283 U. S. 63
highways for ten days without registration or tax, and, upon
making proper filing with the registrar of motor vehicles within
the ten-day period, are authorized to use the highways of the state
for a total period of ninety days without any payment whatever.
[
Footnote 9] Appellant says
that, as he is a nonresident of Minnesota, has registered his car
in the Ft. Snelling Reservation, as required by the authorities
thereof, carries license number plates issued by such authorities,
and has offered to make proper filing in Minnesota, to refuse him
the privilege accorded to other nonresidents deprives him of the
equal protection of the law.
But, as was pointed out in
Kane v. New Jersey,
[
Footnote 10] the absence of
any such provision in favor of nonresidents would not render the
law discriminatory. A resident of the state who desires to operate
his car for a single day is liable for the entire year's tax. If
the state determines to extend a privilege to nonresidents, it may
with propriety limit the concession to those who have duly
registered their vehicles in another state or country. The mere
fact that appellant has not so registered his car, and cannot,
therefore, bring himself within the class benefited by the
exemption, does not create a discrimination against him. The state
was not bound to make a classification with respect to exemptions
for him and those similarly situated. Nothing said in
Hendrick
v. Maryland [
Footnote
11] establishes any such principle. Nor are the authorities
which forbid a difference in the method of calculating the amount
of the tax itself depending solely on the fact of residence within
or without the state relevant to the issue in this case. [
Footnote 12] We
Page 283 U. S. 64
find no improper classification or discrimination. The judgment
is
Affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE BUTLER, took no part in the consideration or
decision of this case.
[
Footnote 1]
Art. 7, § 4.
[
Footnote 2]
Art. 16, § 3.
[
Footnote 3]
Mason's Minn.Stat. 1927, §§ 2672-2704, incl., as amended S.L.
1929, c. 335.
[
Footnote 4]
180 Minn. 241, 230 N.W. 572, 574.
[
Footnote 5]
Mason's Minn.Stat. 1927, § 2674 as amended by Laws 1929, c.
330.
[
Footnote 6]
Id.
[
Footnote 7]
Id., § 2675.
[
Footnote 8]
Mason's Minn.Stat. 1927, § 2684.
[
Footnote 9]
Id.
[
Footnote 10]
242 U. S. 242 U.S.
160.
[
Footnote 11]
235 U. S. 235 U.S.
610.
[
Footnote 12]
Travis v. Yale & Towne Mfg. Co., 252 U. S.
60;
Bethlehem Motors Corp. v. Flynt,
256 U. S. 421;
Hanover Fire Ins. Co. v. Harding, 272 U.
S. 494.