Скачать или смотреть CA SUPREME COURT- Not for hire? You're EXEMPTED from the term 'OPERATOR'!!!

Supreme Court of California. In Bank.

" An examination of the exact terminology of the act itself, including both the title of the act and the definition of 'operator,' therein specified as subject to taxation, clearly shows that the act is not limited to 'carriers' or those who are engaged in the business of transportation of persons and property. The title to said act is as follows: 'An act imposing a license fee or tax for the transportation of persons or property for hire or compensation upon the public streets, roads and highways in the State of California by motor vehicle.' Section 1 of said act provides that: 'The word 'operator' shall include all persons, firms, associations and corporations who operate motor vehicles upon any public highway in this State and thereby engage in the transportation of persons or property for hire or compensation, either directly or indirectly.' There can be no doubt, of course, that carriers are included within such terminology. But the very phraseology employed likewise compels the conclusion that the act was not intended to be limited to such carrier service but was purposely phrased to include in addition other transportation upon the public highways for hire or compensation, directly or indirectly. Compensation for transportation service of either common or private contract carrier is direct compensation, and the very fact that the act expressly defines an operator as one who operates a motor vehicle for compensation, either directly or indirectly, supports the conclusion that the act was intended to have a wider application that to carriers alone."

"We are satisfied that the purpose of the enactment of the License Tax Act of 1933 was to secure a fair return to the state for the use of its public highways, not only from carriers, both common carriers and private contract carriers, but also from the larger class of persons who fairly answer to the description of 'operator' therein defined as taxable and who receive compensation,**516 either directly or indirectly, from the use of the public highways. Although it is true that the Legislature might legally have limited the application of such taxes to carriers, it evidently seemed more just and fair to the *54 Legislature, as it does to us, that all those who receive compensation directly or indirectly from the use of the public highway should bear a proportionate share of the burden of its maintenance."