ad valorem tax

Somebody like OOIDA should be looking into this. I don't think you have enough nexus just by passing through with interstate commerce to be liable.

At the very least, it should be apportioned to the time you are there (which would make the tax so low it wouldn't be worth collecting), otherwise it would be discriminatory against interstate commerce, which would also make it illegal.

That's my $.02. I'd love to have somebody take this deeper.

 

OOIDA looked into a few years back but OOIDA only takes on challenges that it believes it can win. It's part of OOIDA's stratagy....so OOIDA says. To me (even though I don't own a truck anymore) it's not only the cost of it, but it's the added hassle of more paperwork and tax laws to keep up with. To me if a state needs more money, it would be a lot easier just to add a couple cents to the IFTA or a couple more dollars to the IRP. Make it something easier to plan for, instead of these out of the blue letters from states saying "BTW you owe us money". Just my thoughts.

 

This one sounds very winable if it's not properly apportioned. If you're only passing through KS for 12 hrs, 2x a year, you should pay 1/365th the tax that somebody running intrastate in KS does. If the tax isn't collected that way, it's unconstitutional.

If they are doing it that way, it's just a nuisance, and OOIDA may be smart to let it go.

 

I hope your right that it's unconstitutional because it's more then just annoying. I can't remember how it was calculated, something to do with the value of my truck and trailer but I do know I averaged about $500 a year for Kansas Tax. Now granted I live outside of Kansas City on the Missouri side and 50% of my outgoing and return loads were out of Kansas but if other states, counties and towns start doing the same thing, a guy with one truck and one trailer could easily start having to pay out thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars per year.

If you know laws pretty good and find out more about this, please keep me posted.

 

I do not understand how it could be construed as unconstitutional in the first place.

The state of Kansas has the right to enact laws the way they see fit.

They have a minimum fee if you have an authority. Even if you never enter the state. The fact that you have entered them on the IRP allows them the access.

It is just a cost of doing business.

 

The courts have held that any tax on business cannot discriminate against interstate commerce and must be apportioned.

When it comes to interstate commerce, all states are subservient to the federal constitution. They might enact whatever laws they see fit, but they won't hold up in court if they are properly challenged.

Minimum fees violate apportionment rules. If every state you entered had such a minimum, such taxes would be clearly be discriminatory against interstate commerce. The fact that only a few do, it's just as discriminatory, it just isn't as obvious.

I would say if you never entered the state, having it on the IRP would not constitute a sufficient connection (nexus) to be subject to the tax.

 

You will have alot to learn, because many states charge permits as well to interstate truckers and have been doing it for years.

 

And, some of those have been thrown out by the courts. Even permit fees should be apportioned. If an intrastate truck that runs in state 365 days pays the same permit fees as one that runs through for 12 hours a year, that's not a valid apportionment and is discriminatory against interstate commerce. Minimum permit fees are, by their very nature, discriminatory.

The taxing of interstate commerce by states has been a long battle that continues to this day. The most public one is on the issue of sales taxes on mail order items. States are still trying to find ways to do it. The only thing that has stopped them has been the commerce clause of the federal constitution and the court rulings related to it.

Based upon what I've seen on the ad volarium tax issue, states such as Kansas do not have a position that will hold up to a good challenge. It'll take an effort to make the challenge, though, and I'm not sure it can be done as a class action.

With the Kansas tax, like I said to the guy with the Arkansas tax, get me the statute under which they are levying the tax, and I'll look further into the constitutionality of it.

Some statutes are unconstitutional on their face. Others are unconstitutional in their application. Either way, there might be a good challenge, but I need more info.

 

Have fun.

I argued with them back in 2006.

 

Under what theories? Did you take it to court?

In my experience, even though every government employee has taken an oath to uphold the constitution, most of them put their job description first. Very few of them will ever even consider a challenge to the legality of what they do, unless it comes from a judge. Even judges usually find a way to make the government right. It's definitely an uphill fight.