*1
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v. COMPANY,
SUN VALLEY
corporation, Defendant-
Appellant. Idaho, KETCHUM,
The CITY OF municipal corporation,
Plaintiff-Respondent, CORPORATION, Wyo-
SINCLAIR OIL
ming corporation, Valley dba Sun Com-
pany, Defendant-Appellant. TAX
IDAHO STATE COMMISSION Idaho, Plaintiffs-
Intervenors, Respondents, CORPORATION, Wyo
SINCLAIR OIL
ming corporation, dba Sun Com
pany, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos.
Supreme Court of Idaho.
April 16, 1993.
Rehearing May 24, Denied
Elam, Chartered, Boise, Boyd, Burke and defendant-appellant Corp. Oil (argued). Carl P. Burke Kneeland, Korb, Collier, Legg & Hau- kaas, Ketchum, for plaintiff-respondent City (ar- J. Sun Bruce Collier gued). Troxell,
Hawley, Boise, Hawley, Ennis & plaintiff-respondent City of Ketchum. (argued). Richard G. Smith EchoHawk, Gen., Larry Atty. Carl Olsson, Gen., Deputy Boise, E. Atty. plaintiff-respondent Idaho State Tax Com’n (argued). and State. Carl E. Olsson *2 TROUT, tickets, purchase those lift purchasing Justice.
“foot lift tickets such traffic” for I. sightseeing as or use of restaurants. up hike percent Less one skiers than AND BACKGROUND PRIOR down, slopes ski ever the ski and without PROCEEDINGS buying lift ticket. (Sun origi- City Valley Valley) The of Sun presented hearing at the evidence nally declaratory judg- filed this for action in which also illustrated several instances (Sin- against Corporation ment Sinclair Oil purchasing equated a lift ticket was clair), area, Valley owners of ski Sun skiing. For example, Sinclair act of receipts determine for sale of lift lift tickets skiers for dan- will revoke from pro- under the sales tickets are taxable gerous skiing. or reckless Sinclair some- City of I.C. of Ket- visions 63-3612. § refunds the cost lift tickets to times (Ketchum) the Idaho State Tax chum and injure slopes skiers who themselves (ISTC) subsequently joined the Commission early day because individuals these responsibility action to determine Sinclair’s pro- longer are no able ski. Under to collect remit taxes. gram employed by entitled “Kids Sinclair skiing Valley ski area consists of Sun Free,” Ski children received free lift tickets on Mountain Dollar facilities Bald part to ski promotion allowing of a them near cities of Ketchum and Mountain at no cost. Valley. As “resort cities” under Sun testimony presenting After evidence and 50-1044, Valley Sun have Ketchum and hearing, parties brought cross at the municipal authority impose sales tax- summary The trial judgment. motions for authority is limited to es. lift tickets were found subject which are to taxation under sales plain meaning of I.C. chapter title Idaho Code. 3612(f) “[rjeceipts from use of or the n 50-1046(c). using tangible proper- personal for recreational ty or other facilities parties in a Both submitted evidence that lift poses.” The trial court also found hearing pre- before the trial court. Sinclair lan- tickets the clear were taxable under evidence that it leases the land on sented (e) guage of section the statute “[a]d- special permit Bald Mountain under a use charges.” The court did not missions trial from the United Forest States Service. reg- or the ISTC consult permit, a condition Sinclair cannot that the statute ulations because entry for ski area and has into the unambiguous. was clear and authority to individuals from the no remove slopes or ski Sinclair areas. granted summary judg- The trial court Mountain, owns land on Dollar Sinclair ISTC, interloc- ment in favor of the and an entry onto does not this land utory in and Sun order favor Ketchum appealed either. the sum- from Sinclair mary judgment favor the operates area on Bald Sinclair granted Tax Commission. This Court then special permit Mountain under a term interlocutory appeal Sinclair’s motion per- the Forest Under this Service. involving Ketchum Sun order chairlifts, mit, operate allowed appeal. consolidated among lodges, shops other facili- rental permit Bald This ties on Mountain. defines II. “uphill chairlifts as facili- ties.” AND A WHERE STATUTE IS CLEAR FACE, UNAMBIGUOUS ON ITS A Testimony hearing revealed NEED NOT LEG- COURT CONSULT ninety-nine percent, majority, the vast ISLATIVE HISTORY OR AGENCY tickets, purchase of those who do so REGULATIONS skiing boarding snow issue, we must preliminary A small number As a down mountainside. individuals, appropriate a court to percent all resolve less than one when legislative history consult administra- Id. at 828 P.2d at construing a citing Knight Employment Agen- tive statute. Sec. finding The trial court was correct in cy, of a
where
unam-
(1965). Furthermore,
where there is not
biguous,
need
there
no
to consult extrin-
answer,
statutory
precise
*3
consistently
sic evidence. We have
held
give
agency
deference to an
construction
statutory language
unambig-
that where
is
(1)
authority
to
agency
a statute if
has
uous, legislative history and other extrinsic
law; (2)
agency
administer that area of
not be
evidence should
consulted for
has made a reasonable construction of the
clearly
altering
expressed
statute;
(3)
underlying
rationales
legislature.
intent of the
Sweeney Ot-
v.
present.
rule of deference are
J.R. Sim-
ter,
135, 138,
308,
119 Idaho
804 P.2d
311
Co.,
862,
plot
120
Idaho
820 P.2d
(1990);
Comm’n,
Moses v. Idaho State Tax
1219.
676, 678,
964,
118 Idaho
799 P.2d
966
(1990);
v.
Ottesen
Board
Comm’rs of
III.
1099, 1100,
County,
Madison
107 Idaho
1238,
(1985).
695 P.2d
1239
LIFT
ARE NOT TAXABLE
TICKETS
premise underly-
The most fundamental
AS
CHARGES
ADMISSIONS
63-3612(e)
ing judicial
legislature’s
review
UNDER I.C. §
that,
is
enactments
unless the result
is
The trial court
that lift tick
absurd,
palpably
the courts must assume
provi
ets were taxable under the sales tax
legislature
meant what
it said.
63-3612(e).
sions of
This statute
I.C. §
Where
unambigu-
a statute is clear and
title,
“any
defines a sale as
transfer of
expressed
ous the
legisla-
intent of the
exchange
tangible personal
barter ...
given
ture must be
effect.
a
property for
Section
consideration....”
State, Dep’t
Law
v. One
(e)
Enforcement
charges.”
includes as
sale: “admission
Jeep,
150, 153,
Willys
1955
100 Idaho
595
agree
do not
We
trial
299,
(1979).
language
302
“Where the
63-3612(e) clearly
unambiguous
unambiguous,
there is no occasion for
ly applies
tickets.
application
of rules of construction.”
statute,
construing
words of the
Otter,
Sweeney
138,
v.
119 Idaho at
plain,
given
statute should be
their
,P.2d
(citations omitted)
at 311.
Further-
nary meaning.
Hensley
Walker
Truck-
more,
express
the court must follow
writ-
(1984).
ing, 107 Idaho
precise statutory A of under- number agency party questions of the construction apply regulations. lying rationales ISTC only impli- is what statute in this issue First, interpretation is a "rational” ISTC’s legislature be of the can cations about intent statutory necessarily interpretation of broad agency interpretation. Both drawn from the Second, legislature presumably language. interpreted parties assert be that the interpretation, of the knew altering ISTC regulations. in a manner consistent statute, presumably sanctioned Accordingly, upon called to defer we are not Third, interpretation. ISTC is a coor- ISTC regulations regulations, only to use government, dinate branch should ters. and the determining the intent extrinsic source in recognize expertise in tax mat- the ISTC’s support which rationales argues that IV. regulations indicate that and ISTC
LIFT ARE TAXABLE RE- TICKETS AS legislature intend to tax re- did not THE USE OR PRIVI- CEIPTS FROM ceipts for lift tickets. LEGE OF USING FACILITIES FOR RECREATIONAL PURPOSES UN- First, legislative history Sinclair cites DER I.C. § proposition and the places. intended The trial court found that lift tick explaining ets were taxable under 3612(f) states: (f) Section a sale “re states that includes ceipts or from the use of fees, bowling, green Charges for using tangible personal property or other clubs, membership golf dues purposes.” facilities for recreational membership fee, pri- language clearly trial court found mary purpose procure is to which unambiguously applied to lift tickets. particular facility building recreation, purpose of are here covered. Country Crane Creek Club Comm’n, 122 State Tax 841 House Revenue and Taxation Comm. Re- upheld P.2d 410 district court port support p. 11, Bill of House ruling membership private dues for a *5 Leg. 38th Session golf plain club were under the lan- regulations The ISTC state: guage of I.C. In Crane § Charges green fees, bowling, mem- Creek, country dispute did not club dues, bership required fees or other to be it offered recreational facilities to its mem- clubs, racquet clubs, golf swim bers, the issue was whether the dues had clubs, clubs, health or other clubs and to be related use of to actual the facilities. nature, organizations pri- similar We held that the dues club were taxable mary purpose or fees said express under the terms of the statute as procure particular the use of a receipts “privilege using” for the recre- facility, facilities, building pur- or for the facilities, ational regardless of whether pose physical of recreation or condition- actually members used facilities. Id. ing subject are tax. to sales In holding, so implicitly we found the lan- guage of ambigu- was not 35.02.12,6.c. IDAPA Reg. Sinclair con- ous. clubs, by listing tends that various these sources indicate an intent applied bar, facts case at places. places, are Since chairlifts Sin- however, (f) section is not they clair concludes are not included as clear. Here we must decide whether scope of the statute. chairlifts are used pur- “recreational pose.” argued Sinclair has that a chairlift plain language of the stat- transportation is a service rather than a specifies “places.” ute “facilities” recreational facility. we are not reports committee do not entirely persuaded by argument, Sinclair’s any make clear distinction between legitimate there is a question to whether facilities, they only types list various chairlifts are used for recreational recreation. “Facilities” are which “[t]hat poses. For we agree this reason cannot action, promotes operation, the ease of with the trial court that the terms of I.C. transaction or course of conduct” and “em- 63-3612(f) clearly unambiguously ap- anything braces which aids or makes easier ply receipts for lift tickets. performance of the activities involved ambiguity person corporation.”
Since business of a there is some as to what (5th Dictionary 1979). Black’s Law 531 purpose” considered a “recreational un- ed. 63-3612(f), der Wisconsin consult ex- Court defined “fa- cility” built, trinsic sources this ambiguity. “something to resolve that is ... con- structed, installed, See Idaho State Tax Comm’n v. per- Haener or established to Bros., Inc., 121 at 828 P.2d form particular some function or to serve particular some end.” Tele- of the transaction this case. Consoli- facilitate Taxation, Freightways Corp. Dep’t mark Co. dated Delaware v. v. Wisconsin State, (1965), Taxation, Dep’t 28 Wis.2d 137 N.W.2d Revenue &
quoting Third International sets forth Webster’s Telemark, determining taxability In the standard for Dictionary. the court transactions. In cases in- facility. that a ski tow was a of mixed sales transactions, volving mixed we look the perfor- A chairlift “makes easier” determine object real the transaction to mance of some activities and it is built to purchase is sale a service. whether a fact, perform particular In un- function. balancing recites the test Consolidated special use permit der term between Regu- listed in the and Use Tax Idaho Sales Service, Sinclair and the Forest chairlifts lations: transportation “uphill referred (b) determining whether a mixed added.) (Emphasis Under facilities." consequential transaction constitutes a definitions, “fa- and the above chairlifts are transaction, must be service a distinction cilities.” object as to the transac- made cites Secondly, Sinclair tion—i.e., sought by object proposi- tions and per property the service se or the tion that the did not intend by produced the service. transportation tax services or citing n. at 966 n. A tax issued provision. brochure 9, l.b.i.(b). Reg. IDAPA ground ISTC indicates that Consolidated, compared railroad, truck, or taxi is not tax- bus product provided provided skills with the states that able. was taxable as determine the transaction legislature did intend to tax “services” a sale rather than a service. In that con- provisions under the sales tax of I.C. § *6 text the Court noted that a “critical factor and 3612. House Revenue Taxation buyer determining whether the intended to argues then Report Comm. 7. Sinclair tangible buy skills or the an individual's not charges that for lift tickets are buyer’s product of those is the end skills transportation the chairlifts are because tangible product.” end use of the services. 967, citing 735 P.2d at Columbia Pic- provide a though Even chairlifts form of Comm’r, Indus., tures Inc. Tax transportation, charges the for lift tickets A.2d Conn. 63-3612(f) may still be taxable under I.C. § the rule in Under the tax they are facilities used for recre- because Consolidated, object real the trans- of Telemark, purposes. the Wis- ational sought “object action is determined of consin court addressed issue wheth- buyer” prod- “end use of the by the rope er tows T-bar lifts were taxable purchaser buyer Here is the of uct.” facilities. In that as recreational object argued the lift ticket. real of trans- Company Telemark that devices, depends how characterize the transportation re- action on tows were not argues pur- that creational facilities. N.W.2d at transaction. Sinclair ticket, is just rope chasing buyer the lift The court that because transportation, top transportation lift furnishes entitled to tow T-bar sense, transportation quality does immun- hill. In this limited “it not because being top important facili- is more than re- ize itself from recreational riding ty.” buyer may enjoy by Id. The same is true the case creation bar; transportation the mere the lift itself. fact not prevent involved does chairlifts looking at the transaction as facilities for recreational used whole, object sought by buyer is to poses. go skiing. purchases One a lift ticket Therefore, facilitate the recreation we must determine whether rides a chairlift to skiing. Although very small number transportation purpose or recreation is the generally are people the Sun chairlifts for services purposes, overwhelming majority taxable. other tickets, purchase who lift do
of those so skiing. Ninety-nine purpose percent purchase ski-
of those who lift tickets are Furthermore, or snowboarders.
ers percent
ninety-nine of all skiers on
slopes Valley purchase at Sun lift tickets. end perspective, product From object sought by of a lift ticket is Williams, Carol WILLIAMS and J.C. hill; rather, just get top wife, Plaintiffs- husband opportunity hill. to ski down the Appellants, reason, For this real object the trans- recreation, transportation.
action buy who lift the chairlift Those tickets use RESOURCES, INC., an Ida COMPUTER the recreational ski- facilitate Roberts, corporation; De ho and Scott Therefore, ing. re- ticket fendants-Respondents. using ceipts for the use or No. 19771. facilities for recreational under I.C. § Idaho, Boise, February 1993 Term. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court regarding decision April find that lift tickets are taxable provision corresponding city and the
nances Ketchum and Sun No attorney appeal.
costs fees on
McDEVITT, C.J., BISTLINE, J. and
BAKES, (Pro Tem.) (following J. 1, 1993), February
retirement on concur.
JOHNSON, Justice, concurring and
dissenting. I, II,
I parts concur in and III opinion.
Court’s I part dissent from IV
(Lift Receipts Tickets Are Taxable as Privilege Using orUse Facilities for Purposes
Recreational
3612(f)).
I agree opinion with the Court’s purposes” ambiguous.
term “recreational view, however, my analysis focusing object sought
buyer uphold would also lead us to
application of the sales tax all forms of
transportation, object sought by where the go skiing. Inevitably, is to
will include buses and other forms of trans-
portation en- people that take to ski or to
gage ap- in other recreation. The Court’s
plication of the sales tax in this case con- position
flicts that ground ISTC