Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
v.
COUNSEL
OPINION
D O W N I E, Judge:
2
BSI v. ADOT
Opinion of the Court
DISCUSSION
3
BSI v. ADOT
Opinion of the Court
8 The parties dispute whether the Jet was based in Arizona for
more than 209 days within the meaning of A.R.S. 28-8336. We review
issues of statutory interpretation, as well as grants of summary judgment,
de novo. See Ariz. Dept of Revenue v. Salt River Project Agric. Improvement &
Power Dist., 212 Ariz. 35, 38, 13 (App. 2006). Ordinarily, an administrative
agencys interpretation of a statute it implements is given great weight. See
Baca v. Ariz. Dept of Econ. Sec., 191 Ariz. 43, 4546 (App. 1998). However,
the agencys interpretation is not infallible, and courts must remain the final
authority on critical questions of statutory construction. U.S. Parking Sys.
v. City of Phoenix, 160 Ariz. 210, 211 (App. 1989).
I. A.R.S. 28-8336
10 BSI concedes the Jet was based in Arizona for more than 90
days during each of the tax years at issue, and the parties agree the Jet was
not engaged in intrastate commercial activity. The parties disagree, though,
about how to calculate the number of days the Jet was based in this state.
4
BSI v. ADOT
Opinion of the Court
24-hour period, it was not based in Arizona for that particular day.2
Applying that standard, BSI calculates the following day counts for the Jet:
Tax Year 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Day Count 173 152 150 159 190 206 162 187 162
Tax Year 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Day Count
229 232 234 249 259 274 260 276 293
Pilot Logs
Day Count
228 217 218 235 243 236 236 247 236
Flightwise3
14 We agree with the tax court that the statute is ambiguous. See
Hayes v. Contl Ins. Co., 178 Ariz. 264, 268 (1994) (A statute is ambiguous if
its text allows for more than one rational interpretation.). We disagree,
however, that the ambiguity persists after applying recognized tools of
statutory construction. See id. (if the meaning of a statute is uncertain,
courts may employ tools of statutory interpretation). Although courts
liberally construe statutes imposing taxes in favor of the taxpayers and
against the government, Salt River Project, 212 Ariz. at 38, 14, that tenet
applies only if a statute remains ambiguous after utilizing tools of statutory
5
BSI v. ADOT
Opinion of the Court
interpretation. See Harris Corp. v. Ariz. Dept of Revenue, 233 Ariz. 377, 384,
23 (App. 2013) (The maxim that ambiguous statutes are construed in favor
of taxpayers applies only after considering the interpretive guidance
provided by the legislature, and applying standard rules of construction.).
17 During all of the tax years at issue here, the statutory scheme
governing aircraft registration and taxation mandated that aircraft license
tax assessments go directly into the state aviation fund (Fund) for use in
the construction, development and improvement of airports. A.R.S. 28-
8345. Fund expenditures cover items such as construction and maintenance
of runways, taxiways, and aprons where aircraft park; lighting; aircraft
guidance systems; weather observation and reporting equipment; and
signage. BSI did not controvert ADOT employee Susan J. Wyleziks
affidavit regarding how aircraft based in Arizona use airport infrastructure
and services:
6
BSI v. ADOT
Opinion of the Court
7
BSI v. ADOT
Opinion of the Court
237 Ariz. 246 (App. 2015), is unavailing. In that case, the state retirement
system adopted a policy concerning newly promulgated statutes regarding
employer termination incentive programs that affected employers
substantive rights. Id. at 24849, 58. The policy involved a complex
calculation with subjective components, id. at 251, 19, requiring the
exercise of substantial judgment and discretion. Id. at 252, 21. No
comparable policy is at issue here. We simply have an agency interpreting
a term in a statute. Administrative agencies need not (and indeed, could
not realistically) define, disclose, and codify their interpretations of every
Arizona statute relevant to their duties. Furthermore, it is the statute itself,
as opposed to ADOTs interpretation and implementation of it, that has
affected BSIs rights.
II. Estoppel
CONCLUSION