49 U.S.C. § 14505
State tax
Section effective
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1999–2023 · leading case: Tri-State Coach Lines, Inc. v. Metro. Pier & Exposition Auth., 732 N.E.2d 1137 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000).
Tri-State Coach Lines, Inc. v. Metro. Pier & Exposition Auth., 732 N.E.2d 1137 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000). “xposition Authority (MPEA) in a class action lawsuit filed by plaintiffs, ultimately certified by the court as Class A and Class B members, who sought, inter alia, a declaration determining whether MPEA’s imposition of an airport departure tax on plaintiffs’ ground…”
Wal-Mart Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Zaragoza-Gomez, 834 F.3d 110 (1st Cir. 2016). “The AMT fails the internal consistency test because if every state were to adopt the AMT, multistate corporations doing business across state lines would be disadvantaged relative to corporations whose operations are consolidated in one state.”
Jalbert Leasing, Inc. v. Massachusetts Port Auth., 449 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2006). “Rather, the bus companies say that as to them, the fees are prohibited by 49 U.S.C. § 14505 (2000) (“the bus statute”), which reads, in its entirety, as follows: A State or political subdivision thereof may not collect or levy a tax, fee, head charge, or other charge on— (1) a…”
Karbal v. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 158 P.3d 243 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). “2d 261 (1995), superseded by statute on other grounds, 49 U.S.C. § 14505 (2006), as recognized in Tri-State Coach Lines, Inc.”
Silver Fox Limousine v. City of Chicago, 713 N.E.2d 583 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999). “” 49 U.S.C. § 14505 (Supp. 1996). The Act became effective on January 1, 1996.”
City of Peoria v. Brink's Home Sec., Inc., 229 P.3d 1020 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). “2d 261 (1995), superseded by statute on other grounds, 49 U.S.C. § 14505 (2004), as recognized in Tri-State Coach Lines, Inc.”
Arco Bldg. Sys., Inc. v. Chumley, 209 S.W.3d 63 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006). “803, 904 (codified at 49 U.S.C.A. § 14505 (1997)); D.H. Holmes Co.”
Renzenberger, Inc. v. N.M. Taxation & Revenue Dep't (N.M. Ct. App. 2017). “13 49 U.S.C. § 14505 14 {5} In 1995, Congress passed the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination 15 Act (the ICCTA) with the intent of deregulating certain industries.”
Interlott Tech., Inc. v. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 72 P.3d 1271 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). “2d 1137 (2000), for reasons other than this proposition, the Jefferson Lines opinion was “reversed” by the passage of the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995, 49 U.S.C. § 14505 (Supp. II 1997).”
Tri-State Coach Lines, Inc. v. Metro. Pier & Exposition Auth. (Ill. App. Ct. 2000). “position Authority (MPEA) in a class action lawsuit filed by plaintiffs, ultimately certified by the court as Class A and Class B members, who sought, inter alia , a declaration determining whether MPEA's imposition of an airport departure tax on plaintiffs' ground…”
Cargill Meat Solutions, Corp. v. Dir., Div. of Taxation (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2023). “§ 14505 , Cargill contends the United States Supreme Court held gross receipt taxes are "required to be apportioned to reflect the location of the various interstate activities by which it [is] earned." Accordingly, Cargill argues the judge erred in not apportioning the total…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.