US Supreme Court dismisses case over Arizona’s use of rental car tax to fund sports facilities.

[TheLegend]

Rental car tax that funds State Farm Stadium will stand after U.S. Supreme Court dismisses case

A tax on rental cars in Maricopa County, among the highest in the nation, will stay put after the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a case related to the tax.

The decision is good news for future funding of sports stadiums in the county.

The tax supports Arizona Sports and Tourism Authority, which helps fund State Farm Stadium, spring training stadiums, tourism and youth and amateur sports.

The basis for the case was an Arizona law which prohibited transportation taxes from being used for any projects other than transportation.

The tax was approved by voters in 2000 who were fully informed as to what the tax was for.

A Maricopa County judge had originally ruled in favor of rental car companies declaring it as unconstitutional, but was overturned by the Arizona Supreme Court. Now the USSC has dismissed the case.

The tax was the primary funding source for the construction and operation of State Farm Stadium (NFL Cardinals). Plus provided additional funding to cities who have MLB spring training facilities.

The cities of Goodyear and Glendale were both in line to receive funding when this case was first launched and it held their share of it up putting a lot of pressure on both cities in repaying the bonds they took out. Now it appears they will get some relief.

Click to read more...

 

[sh724]

If the legislature was able to pass this tax wouldnt they just have easily been able to change the existing law?

Also should have been obvious the Supreme Court wouldnt take this up, its really not their place to debate state laws that have no Constitution or discrimination aspects

 

[LadyStanley]

SCOTUS is the acronym for the Supreme Court (of the United States).

They can look at state laws, especially as it pertains to interstate commerce and federal law.

This is an initiative/referendum voted by the people, not a law from the legislature. Don't know if that had anything to do with it either.

 

[sh724]

SCOTUS is the acronym for the Supreme Court (of the United States).

They can look at state laws, especially as it pertains to interstate commerce and federal law.

This is an initiative/referendum voted by the people, not a law from the legislature. Don't know if that had anything to do with it either.

Yes they can look at things like this but they never do which is why i said its obvious they wouldnt take it up. There is nothing headline worthy and its very small scale. SCOTUS only looks at things if there is a high chance of the lower court decision being overturned

 

[David Dennison]

https://azcapitoltimes.com/news/201...fuses-to-hear-case-on-arizona-rental-car-tax/

A little clarification on the crux of the suit, it wasn't super clear from the USA Today article.

Monday’s ruling, made on the first day the nation’s high court was back from summer recess, also leaves intact the decision by the Arizona justices that, strictly speaking, a tax on the renting of cars is not a tax on the use of state roads.

That distinction is critical.

The Arizona Constitution spells out that any cash raised from fees or taxes related to the registration, operation or use of vehicles on public highways and streets can be used only to build and maintain roads. If the court had found the car-rental tax was a levy on the use of public roads, then it would be illegal to use the cash to finance stadiums and other similar facilities.

I think they got it right, I hate seeing cities raid other funding to publicly finance stadiums, but use taxes where the revenue is earmarked for a specific purpose tend to have that effect anyways. Like lottery revenue going to schools isn't some windfall for schools, it just means less general revenue has to go towards schools and the state can spend that GR elsewhere.

But this is mostly about a rental car company complaining about paying use taxes, which I give zero shits about.

 

[LadyStanley]

Except that it's not the companies who pay (out of profits) as they pass the cost on to the consumer, so it's Joe Sixpack who foots the bill.

 

[David Dennison]

Except that it's not the companies who pay (out of profits) as they pass the cost on to the consumer, so it's Joe Sixpack who foots the bill.

No, but it raises the cost to consumer (that effects demand for rental cars), and there aren't any clear benefits to the rental company.

Bottom line is Joe Six-pack picks up the bill regardless, whether it's thru a use tax or a slight increase to sales or property taxes. I guess the law puts the burden more on out-of-state visitors, but it's not my place to nitpick how Arizona pays it's bills.

But I will gladly protest these unjust taxes by not visiting Arizona. No step on snake!

 

[TheLegend]

Except that it's not the companies who pay (out of profits) as they pass the cost on to the consumer, so it's Joe Sixpack who foots the bill.

The lawsuit was originally launched by a local car rental agency looking to score a windfall.
Saban Rent-a-Car LLC v. Arizona Department of Revenue

They were recently fined nearly $2 million for deceptive billing practices by the state of Arizona and had been under scrutiny for years.
https://www.azag.gov/press-release/...st-car-rental-company-defrauding-az-consumers

The major companies didn't care other than the paperwork.