Massachusetts v. United States
1978 U.S. LEXIS 20, 55 L. Ed. 2d 403, 435 U.S. 444 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A nondiscriminatory federal tax imposed on a state is constitutionally permissible if it is a fair approximation of a user fee for benefits the state receives from a federal program, and the revenue generated does not exceed the total cost of the program.
Facts:
- The federal government expends funds to develop and maintain a national airsystem, including air navigational facilities and services.
- In 1970, Congress enacted the Airport and Airway Revenue Act, which imposed an annual registration tax on all civil aircraft that fly in the navigable airspace of the United States.
- The Commonwealth of Massachusetts owned a helicopter which it used exclusively for police functions, such as patrolling highways.
- The United States assessed Massachusetts a tax of $131.43 on this state police helicopter for the 1970-1971 period.
- Massachusetts refused to pay the tax.
- The United States levied one of the Commonwealth's bank accounts to collect the tax, plus interest and penalties.
Procedural Posture:
- The Commonwealth of Massachusetts filed an action in the United States District Court seeking a refund of the collected tax.
- The District Court dismissed the complaint.
- Massachusetts, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment, holding that the tax was a constitutionally permissible user fee.
- The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the federal annual aircraft registration tax, as applied to an aircraft owned by a state and used exclusively for police functions, violate the constitutional doctrine of implied state immunity from federal taxation?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Brennan
No. The annual aircraft registration tax does not violate the implied immunity of a state government from federal taxation because it is a nondiscriminatory revenue measure that operates as a user fee to recoup a fair share of the costs of a federal program from its beneficiaries. The historical doctrine of state tax immunity has been significantly confined and does not protect states from paying for specific benefits they receive. This tax is part of a comprehensive program to finance the national airway system, and it is structured to make users, including states, pay their fair share. The Court applies a three-prong test from Commerce Clause jurisprudence: the charge is permissible so long as it (1) does not discriminate against state functions, (2) is based on a fair approximation of use, and (3) is structured to produce revenues not in excess of the total cost of the benefits supplied. Here, the tax is nondiscriminatory, is part of a scheme that fairly approximates use, and the total revenues collected do not exceed the cost of the federal aviation program.
Concurring - Justice Stewart and Justice Powell
No. The aircraft registration tax is a nondiscriminatory user fee that may be constitutionally imposed upon a State. This conclusion resolves the case, and there is no need to discuss the broader general contours of state immunity from federal taxation as the plurality did in Part II-A of its opinion. For this reason, we join Parts I, II-C, and III of the Court's opinion and concur in the judgment.
Dissenting - Justice Rehnquist
The dissent argues that the case should be remanded for factual development, as it cannot be determined on the current record whether the charge is a valid user fee. The majority improperly decides the case as a matter of law without giving Massachusetts the opportunity to prove the charge is not reasonably related to services rendered. The record does not establish that the United States owns the airspace in a proprietary sense or that the specific state helicopter actually used any federal services. Relying on congressional reports that label the charge a 'user fee' is an inadequate substitute for factual findings that would be necessary to uphold the charge against a sovereign state.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the 'user fee' exception to the doctrine of intergovernmental tax immunity, continuing the judicial trend of narrowing the scope of state immunity from federal taxation. By importing the three-prong test from Commerce Clause jurisprudence (Evansville-Vanderburgh), the Court provided a clear framework for analyzing such charges, focusing on their practical effect rather than their label. This decision makes it significantly harder for states to claim immunity from federal charges tied to specific programs or services from which they benefit, thereby reinforcing the federal government's power to require states to pay their share for federal benefits received.
Unlock the full brief for Massachusetts v. United States