AAA Oregon/Idaho Auto Source, LLC v. State, 363 Or. 411

In 2017 Oregon enacted a 0.5% "privilege tax" (Section 90) imposed on vehicle dealers for engaging in retail sales of certain new motor vehicles; dealers may collect it from purchasers but the purchaser is not a taxpayer under the statute.
The same statute also enacted a complementary 0.5% use tax (Section 91) on purchasers of taxable motor vehicles, offset by any privilege tax paid; revenues from Section 91 go to the State Highway Fund, Section 90 revenues to non‑highway funds (Zero‑Emission Incentive Fund and Connect Oregon Fund).
The legislature asked the Oregon Supreme Court, via original jurisdiction conferred in the same act, to decide whether Section 90 is subject to Article IX, § 3a of the Oregon Constitution; petitioners (Auto Source, AAA, Oregon Trucking) brought the petition and have standing.
Article IX, § 3a (originating in 1942, revised 1980) restricts uses of (a) certain motor‑vehicle fuel taxes and (b) “any tax or excise levied on the ownership, operation or use of motor vehicles,” dedicating such revenues to highway purposes.
Petitioners argued Section 90 is a tax “on the ownership” of motor vehicles (thus subject to § 3a) because ownership includes incidents like the right to sell; the State and legislative history argued § 3a targets special highway‑user taxes tied to use of public roads.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Section 90 is a tax "on the ownership, operation or use of motor vehicles" under Art. IX, § 3a	"Ownership" includes incidents (e.g., right to sell); taxes on those incidents (sales) are taxes on ownership and thus subject to § 3a	§ 3a targets special highway‑user taxes directly attributable to use of public roads; sales‑based business privilege tax is not such a tax	Court held Section 90 is not within § 3a — it is a dealer privilege tax imposed on the business of selling, not on ownership/operation/use tied to highway users.

MacPherson v. DAS, 340 Or. 117 (procedural standing principle; one plaintiff need establish standing)
PGE v. Bureau of Labor & Industries, 317 Or. 606 (textualist construction rule; courts should not insert or omit text)
Sproul v. State Tax Com., 234 Or. 579 (legislative labeling of a levy is important in tax characterization)
Springfield Utility Board v. Emerald PUD, 339 Or. 631 (inference from differing textual usage across provisions)
Parrish v. Rosenblum, 362 Or. 96 (interpretation of referred constitutional amendments by text, context, and history)