State, Department of Revenue v. Alpine Aviation, Inc.
2016 MT 283
| Mont. | 2016Background
- DOR notified Alpine Aviation in 2013 that it would be centrally assessed as a "scheduled airline" under Montana property-tax law; Alpine requested reclassification and appealed to the State Tax Appeal Board.
- DOR sought an interlocutory adjudication in district court of the statutory terms "scheduled airline," "scheduled air commerce," and specifically the phrase "regularly scheduled flights" in § 15-23-401(1), MCA.
- The District Court defined "scheduled airline company" to include persons engaged in transportation by aircraft "on regularly scheduled flights," and defined "regularly scheduled flights" as flights that "follow a patterned but not necessarily uniform interval according to timetables and locations predefined by the carrier and which fly regardless of whether there are passengers or freight to be carried."
- Alpine appealed the District Court’s interlocutory interpretation, arguing statutory meaning should reflect federal aviation usage and legislative history and that Alpine is not a scheduled airline.
- The Supreme Court reviewed statutory interpretation de novo, constrained to legal questions only (no facts) because this was an interlocutory adjudication under § 15-2-305, MCA.
- The Court affirmed the District Court’s ruling in part, but removed the phrase "patterned but not necessarily uniform," holding "regularly scheduled flights" means flights that follow an interval according to timetables and locations predefined by the carrier and operate regardless of whether passengers or freight are aboard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Alpine) | Defendant's Argument (DOR) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of "regularly scheduled flights" in § 15-23-401(1), MCA | "Scheduled" has a unique federal aviation meaning and legislative history supports narrower reading; Alpine is not a scheduled airline | Plain statutory meaning governs; DOR urged interpretation that supports central assessment of carriers operating on predefined schedules | The Court adopted a plain-meaning approach: "regularly scheduled flights" are flights following an interval according to timetables and locations predefined by the carrier and that run regardless of passenger/freight presence; rejected "patterned but not necessarily uniform" language |
| Whether interlocutory adjudication may resolve the issue | Alpine sought remand for factual determination that it is not a scheduled airline | DOR argued the court should decide the legal definition but not factual status | Court limited itself to legal interpretation only; factual determination of Alpine’s status remains for later proceedings |
| Use of dictionary and common usage in statutory interpretation | Alpine urged reliance on federal regulatory usage and legislative history | DOR urged plain language/dictionary approach | Court used plain-language and dictionary definitions to derive the statutory meaning; declined to import inconsistent notions of "irregular patterns" |
| Whether the District Court’s phrase "patterned but not necessarily uniform" was permissible | Alpine highlighted discrepancy and argued narrow meaning | DOR defended the District Court’s formulation | Court reversed that phrase as inconsistent with "regularly" and excised it, affirming remainder of the District Court’s definition |
Key Cases Cited
- Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal, Inc., 411 U.S. 624 (1973) (uses the phrase "regularly scheduled flight" in factual context)
- Trinity Am. Corp. v. EPA, 150 F.3d 389 (4th Cir. 1998) (discusses concept of an "irregular pattern")
- Maker's Mark Distillery, Inc. v. Diageo N. Am., 679 F.3d 410 (6th Cir. 2012) (uses "irregular pattern" in trademark context)
- Air Line Pilots Ass'n Int'l v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 454 F.2d 1052 (D.C. Cir. 1971) (refers to discipline for refusal to fly a "regularly scheduled flight")
- Koirala v. Thai Airways Int'l, 126 F.3d 1205 (9th Cir. 1997) (describes a flight as a "regularly scheduled flight")