🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <7tj57n$1fh@dfw-ixnews21.ix.netcom.com>,
Merlin Dorfman  <dorfman@netcom8.netcom.com> wrote:

>     ("Interstate" Commerce Clause.)  So it violates the _federal_
>constitution, not the state constitution.  

Actually, the court held that it violated both.  The California constitutional
challenge is more technical, as Article XIX would only have required that the
funds be used for certain enumerated transportation purposes, not prohibited it
outright.

>the earlier posts.  In any event the three-year limit for refunds
>seems completely unsupportable.

It probably has to do with who the plaintiffs are and aren't.  Then again, I
haven't read the opinion very carefully yet.

>If the DMV no longer has records,
>then any individual who could provide proof of the payment 
>(receipt, cancelled check, etc.) should be entitled.

I agree.  The DMV should have known all along that their tax was 
unconstitutional, so I don't buy the hardship argument.  Besides, even if they
had to refund everybody's $300, they'd still have all the interest, putting
them in a better position than they would have been in had they obeyed the law.

>     Many years ago I brought a car from out-of-state into California
>and it was charged a "use tax" in lieu of sales tax.  Is that now
>also likely to be found unconstitutional?

Probably not. Use taxes are generally limited to compensating for differences
between sales tax rates of various states, which has the effect of evening the
plaiying field rather than making in-state products more attractive to
consumers than out of state products would be.  But I don't know; maybe they
just haven't been challenged.