The Evansville test would not apply here since the PFF is not imposed for the use of a facility in New Jersey. See also Am. Trucking Ass'ns v. DOT, 124 P.3d 1210, 1216 (Ore. 2005) ("[A]side from the Evansville-Vanderburgh case itself, the test articulated therein has never actually been used again by a majority of the Court to decide a Commerce Clause controversy," in addition to the fact that the case was overruled by statute). However, later United States Supreme Court precedent extended the Complete Auto analysis to fees or taxes.
The Evansville test would not apply here since the PFF is not imposed for the use of a facility in New Jersey. See also Am. Trucking Ass'ns v. DOT, 124 P.3d 1210, 1216 (Ore. 2005) ("[A]side from the Evansville-Vanderburgh case itself, the test articulated therein has never actually been used again by a majority of the Court to decide a Commerce Clause controversy," in addition to the fact that the case was overruled by statute). However, later United States Supreme Court precedent extended the Complete Auto analysis to fees or taxes.
Ooma contends that the 9-1-1 tax is a user fee and must withstand the "more difficult test" stated in the footnote of Commonwealth Edison and applied in Evansville-Vanderburgh. In American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. State of Oregon, 339 Or. 554, 563-67, 124 P.3d 1210 (2005), the Oregon Supreme Court concluded that the Complete Auto test-and not the Evansville-Vanderburgh test-was appropriate for analyzing a "flat-fee" highway tax. The tax at it issue in American Trucking was a fixed charge for use of Oregon's highways that certain carriers might choose to pay in lieu of a weight-mile tax. 339 Or. at 559.
June 26, 2006.Reported below: 339 Ore. 554, 124 P. 3d 1210.Certiorari Denied.
Although it is true that the dormant Commerce Clause has a "long and complicated history," and the Supreme Court has aptly described its jurisprudence as a "quagmire," the Court has also very recently reinforced its validity. See Tenn. Wine & Spirits Retailers Ass'n v. Thomas, — U.S. —, 139 S. Ct. 2449, 2459, 204 L.Ed.2d 801 (2019); Quill Corp. v. N. Dakota By & Through Heitkamp, 504 U.S. 298, 315, 112 S.Ct. 1904, 119 L.Ed.2d 91 (1992), overruled on other grounds by S. Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., — U.S. —, 138 S. Ct. 2080, 201 L.Ed.2d 403 (2018); see also Am. Trucking Ass'ns, Inc. v. State, Dep't of Transp., 339 Or. 554, 562, 124 P.3d 1210 (2005). In Tenn. Wine, the Court examined the history of the dormant Commerce Clause, noting that restricting state protectionism "is deeply rooted in our case law" and that without the Clause "we would be left with a constitutional scheme that those who framed and ratified the Constitution would surely find surprising."
* * * A carrier must maintain records of the declared weights of its trucks and the miles that they travel in order to make the required reports and calculate the amount of tax owed."American Trucking Assns., Inc. v. State of Oregon, 193 Or App 185, 188-89, 90 P3d 15 (2004), aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other grounds, 339 Or 554, 124 P3d 1210 (2005) (footnote omitted). Carriers generally report and pay the tax on a monthly basis.
Therefore, the court does not wade into the murky waters of distinguishing between a "general revenue tax" covered by Complete Auto Transit and a "user fee" covered by Evansville-Vandenburgh.See American Trucking Assns. v. State of Oregon, 339 Or 554, 562-67, 124 P3d 1210 (2005) (considering both lines of cases in determining constitutionality of per-mile charges; applying Complete Auto Transit). Distinctions between taxes and fees arise under various provisions of Oregon law as well.