STATE OF MICHIGAN

FRANK J. KELLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL

Opinion No. 6050

March 30, 1982

TAXATION:

Tax on nonresident motor carriers for increased highway maintenance costs resulting from increased weight limit

A state may impose upon nonresident motor carriers an appropriately apportioned tax to pay for the cost of highway maintenance arising from increased weight limits.

Honorable Carl F. Gnodtke

State Representative

Capitol Building

Lansing, Michigan

You have requested my opinion on the following question:

Courts have upheld state taxes on interstate carriers to compensate fairly for the privilege of using state roads or for the cost of administering state traffic regulations. Capitol Greyhound Lines v Brice, Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 339 US 542; 70 S Ct 806; 94 L Ed 1053 (1949). However, a tax on interstate carriers will not be upheld unless: (a) the carriers have sufficient minimum contacts with the taxing state; (b) the tax is fairly apportioned; (c) the tax is nondiscriminatory; and (d) there is a reasonable relationship between the tax and the services provided by the taxing state. Complete Auto Transit, Inc v Brady, 430 US 274; 97 S Ct 1076; 51 L Ed 2d 326 (1977).

While the net result of such tax may be an increase in the cost of conducting an interstate business, this alone is insufficient to render the tax unenforceable. Western Live Stock v Bureau of Revenue, 303 US 250; 58 S Ct 546; 82 L Ed 823 (1939), Japan Line LTD v County of Los Angeles, 441 US 434; 99 S Ct 1813; 60 L Ed 2d 336 (1979).

It is my opinion, therefore, that a state may impose upon a nonresident motor carrier an appropriately apportioned tax to pay for the cost of highway maintenance arising from increased weight limits.

Frank J. Kelley