$1000 fine for fueling at the wrong pump

[Nuke-E]

The law hasn't changed, and you have at least 2 officials from the Arizona DOT that have explained that it doesn't apply to non-commercial use, and have clarified that point with a published letter. It would seem to me that you should have subpoenas issued for one or both of them, and be prepared with a pretty simple series of questions:

1. Is your configuration and use (not sure what that is, which may be part of the problem, but presumably a motorhome used noncommercially) currently subject to the additional tax summarized in the October letter?
2. Is the law as summarized in the letter the same as the law that was in effect on the date of the citation?

More than likely, you'll have to move fast to get the subpoenas issued and served in time. It would seem like it would be to your advantage to show that the AzDOT was clearly confused as to what the law required.

[GeorgiaHybrid]

Even with the letter, someone like us with a truck that has a GVWR of 30K+ and that is not fitted out as a motorhome will have an issue from what I can see. I might be able to get a pass when the fiver is hooked up but it is our daily driver on the road and if I fuel up running bobtailed, what will happen? For now, I will make sure to NEVER buy fuel in AZ.

[Arch Stanton]

10ponies I thank you for making the effort to change things for all of us.

[10ponies]

Here is the latest update.

 

My hearing has been put off till April 5.

 

I talked to Mark Zimmerman from the ADOT and Karl Goldsmith acting head of field enforcement.

 

In short the 26,000 pounds or 3 axles or more policy does not require you to fuel at commercial pumps and pay

the higher taxes as long as you are a non commercial RV. HOWEVER, if you are registered to an LLC or corporation,

they consider you a commercial RV...period.

 

Any further help would be appreciated.

[Randyretired]

Our major assets are titled under a partnership. This is for a trust. The IRS accepts this and it uses my social number. Non of this is considered a commercial operation. However when I went to title my HDT the clerk said she understood but recommended we use my name as some may not understand. I wonder if some of this noncommercial use of commercial sounding titles could be used for your defense?

[Big5er]

Remember the "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck" thingie? I have always said you need to do every thing you can to avoid the "appearance" of being commercial. When the vehicles are registered to a "company" or "corporation" it is hard to claim that they are YOUR personal property. Nothing in the law says a commercial carrier has to make a profit. There are plenty of businesses that operate at a loss so the parent company can get a tax break on the "loss" just as there are many non profit organizations that form as LLC's. In the eyes of some entities (AZ is obviously one of them) an LLC is a company (it is) and they deem company owned RV's as non recreational.

[Nuke-E]

One of the other complicating factors is that RV haulers in AZ are registered as commercial vehicles. Of course, if you are truly considered a commercial vehicle in AZ, I would think there would have been a whole lot more they could have issued citations for. It would seem like, based on that answer from the enforcement guys, they may just be trying to save face. If it were me, I'd be pointing out the number of different, conflicting, official policy statements in a short time--if the guys in charge of enforcement can't figure out the law...

 

But that means you're going to be relying on a judge (or jury) to interpret the law. You may find one that appreciates the complexity, one that looks at the plain language on the pump, one that looks at your "big rig" that should be used to haul freight, or your registration as an RV.

[Kirk W]

One thing which also plays into this is the issue of "intent of the law" which may be different than the letter of the law.To me, it sounds as though you may need legal representation in the matter, if the size of fine justifies it.

 

My hearing has been put off till April 5.

 

I talked to Mark Zimmerman from the ADOT and Karl Goldsmith acting head of field enforcement.

It sounds as though you need to contact the person that Jim Koca spoke with.

 

Ryan Harding
Arizona Department of Transportation
Office of Public Information
602.712.8111 (office)

I think that you also should touch bases with Jim as well. You might be wise to call the Escapee office and ask to speak to Jim Koca
Escapees Advocacy Director.

[Big5er]

It sounds as though you need to contact the person that Jim Koca spoke with.

Why? Even in the letter that Jim Koca posted the person he spoke with said " Any situation where the RV is being used to help an individual or a business make money can be defined as commercial use. Examples of this include, but are not limited to, an RV that is registered to a business, such as an LLC, or a musical group using an RV to travel to venues to play for money.". And that seems to be the issue. It appears that all three people representing Arizona are saying the same thing, like 10ponies said " if you are registered to an LLC or corporation, they consider you a commercial RV...period."

[DuffMan]

Suggest you contact one of the national RV rental places. They may have already fought this battle or may allow you to use their retained Law Firm as they have a vested interest in the outcome.

 

PS: There are no factual statements in this grey area that can be ended with "period" period!

[Randyretired]

As I and others have already posted this law is confusing and poorly written. The enforcement seems to vary and clearly has not been consistent. Some could argue even arbitrary. Using a name to determine if a RV is commercial or not is also not consistent with some other laws and certainly not spelled out in this law. Just because someone is named Sue as the song goes may not indicate gender. Our assets are held in a name that ends in &CO. It is not commercial and is accepted by many government agencies including the IRS and local and state government. Even our insurance companies understand and accept this as noncommercial. Convincing a court to accept these arguments would seem to be possible but maybe not easy. Good luck and I have my fingers crossed for you.

[yzg]

We will be spending an amount of time in Az but it sounds like, from this discussion, our little freightliner has escaped the bullet...

[Walkerl]

Why? Even in the letter that Jim Koca posted the person he spoke with said " Any situation where the RV is being used to help an individual or a business make money can be defined as commercial use.

 

Why? - Because the presence of an LLC does not automatically equate to "Any situation where the RV is being used to help an individual or a business make money". RV not being used by "an Individual or business" to make money then phrase doesn't apply.

 

In addition the "can be defined" in that statement shows it is discretionary and not mandatory to be "defined as commercial use". The OP needs to know EXACTLY what trigger(s) make(s) "commercial use" - who better to ask?

 

Still plenty of wiggle room if that letter is read critically.

 

Walkerl

[Bob Cochran]

One of the other complicating factors is that RV haulers in AZ are registered as commercial vehicles. Of course, if you are truly considered a commercial vehicle in AZ, I would think there would have been a whole lot more they could have issued citations for. It would seem like, based on that answer from the enforcement guys, they may just be trying to save face. If it were me, I'd be pointing out the number of different, conflicting, official policy statements in a short time--if the guys in charge of enforcement can't figure out the law...

 

But that means you're going to be relying on a judge (or jury) to interpret the law. You may find one that appreciates the complexity, one that looks at the plain language on the pump, one that looks at your "big rig" that should be used to haul freight, or your registration as an RV.

In Arizona all vehicles 1 ton or larger is required to be register commercial no matter its use. While I agree this is wrong it is what it is here!!!!

[Nuke-E]

In Arizona all vehicles 1 ton or larger is required to be register commercial no matter its use. While I agree this is wrong it is what it is here!!!!

 

Right--we're talking about a state fuel tax, and they're more or less able to asses the tax however they want, including defining what's "commercial" under that section of state law.

Here's the definition that applies here:

28-5201

 

1. "Commercial motor vehicle" means a motor vehicle or combination of motor vehicles that is designed, used or maintained to transport passengers or property in the furtherance of a commercial enterprise on a highway in this state, that is not exempt from the gross weight fees as prescribed in section 28-5432, subsection B and that includes any of the following:

(a) A single vehicle or combination of vehicles that has a gross vehicle weight rating of eighteen thousand one or more pounds and that is used for the purposes of intrastate commerce.

( A single vehicle or combination of vehicles that has a gross vehicle weight rating of ten thousand one or more pounds and that is used for the purposes of interstate commerce.

© A school bus.

(d) A bus.

(e) A vehicle that transports passengers for hire and that has a design capacity for eight or more persons.

(f) A vehicle that is used in the transportation of materials found to be hazardous for the purposes of the hazardous materials transportation authorization act of 1994 (49 United States Code sections 5101 through 5128) and that is required to be placarded under 49 Code of Federal Regulations section 172.504, as adopted by the department pursuant to this chapter.

 

 

If a 1-ton truck not used in the furtherance of a commercial enterprise is considered a commercial vehicle under this definition, it would seem like it would have to be an interpretation that a 1-ton truck is designed for transportation in the furtherance of a commercial enterprise. Of course, that interpretation would be subject to review--it just may not have met the right challenger yet!

[Big5er]

Why? - Because the presence of an LLC does not automatically equate to "Any situation where the RV is being used to help an individual or a business make money". RV not being used by "an Individual or business" to make money then phrase doesn't apply.

No, but 10ponies also said that after talking to them (ad nauseam it appears) they said "HOWEVER, if you are registered to an LLC or corporation, they consider you a commercial RV...period."

So whether you and I agree that having a company owned RV makes it automatically commercial, that seems to be their position.

 

If a 1-ton truck not used in the furtherance of a commercial enterprise is considered a commercial vehicle under this definition, it would seem like it would have to be an interpretation that a 1-ton truck is designed for transportation in the furtherance of a commercial enterprise.

Dave, here is one definition of commerce:

 

Commerce is the exchange of items of value between persons or companies. Any exchange of money or items for a product, service or information is considered a transaction of commerce. These trades do not need to occur physically in a single location, and transactions made over the Internet — also known as e-commerce — became widespread during the early 21st century.

 

My employer does not provide me with vacation leave out of the goodness of their heart. It is an employee benefit, part of my "pay" for my services. So if a company (an LLC) buys a product for it's employees to use, is that not a "exchange of an item for a service"? Even if a persons sole function at an LLC is to maintain the LLC (signor of documents / owner (partner) of the LLC) wouldn't being allowed to use the company RV constitute an "exchange of items for a service"? Nowhere in the law does it say a company must be profitable. Even companies that fail and go bankrupt are engaging in commerce. The LLC was created simply to buy the RV and the LLC can not maintain itself. It must have a person and if that person(s) receives a reward (money or items) for those services..........It may be cheesy, but it does fit.

[dascom]

Read the entire thread last night. Knowing that many rules and laws conflict, been trying to imagine the legal approach

that would best lead to a not guilty outcome. It appears the charge is that a person knowingly attempted to skirt the AZ fuel

tax rules.

As was mentioned before, this seems to be the first thing to show, you do, it's over.

 

If the court can't see past that, because of the fine print postings gives "should have known" arguement, then next I would

think going to the argument that the vehicle in question is exempt from the Use tax provisions.

 

This being a civil case, there is not going to be a jury, witness's, or state prosecutor unless you really push this thing.

You will probably get a chance to bring your case, then the judge will decide. Most times you will get only one statement

during the hearing. It will be necessary to make the entire case at that time.

 

So, 1: I didn't know I was fueling at the wrong pump...

2: The vehicle I was fueling is exempt because

a: it is a non-commercial vehicle that weighs <25k#

b: it is an RV under the state and federal deffiniton

c: I am the sole owner of the trust that holds the vehicle

3: The enforcement officers that brought the charge did not understand

the law, as demonstrated by their own statements and their ticketing

other RV's while I was there, the misleading statements from their leadership,

and the multiple clarifications I have here from their office.

4: I present the history of the legislative intent here, you can see our lawmakers

did not intend to have this tax applied to me.

 

You get all the ducks in a row and sell this to the judge and Bob;s your uncle, you don't, well then.

 

Big5er, just a fine point. you can not do business with yourself, the rule is "between persons" ie, more than one.

 

ps... 10horses, you should do the search, when a law is passed there is much documentation in the body creating that

law as to it's intent. There you will find what the lawmakers were thinking. There you will get your argument.

[Kirk W]

In addition the "can be defined" in that statement shows it is discretionary and not mandatory to be "defined as commercial use". The OP needs to know EXACTLY what trigger(s) make(s) "commercial use" - who better to ask?

 

Still plenty of wiggle room if that letter is read critically.

It goes to the intent of the law, which unless it has been to court previously, may not be clearly defined. It seems to me that this may be an issue that the RV community needs to be aware of as avoiding the state because of this issue could help to get things changed. Such boycott actions have worked effectively in other situations.You can't be ticketed if you stay away from that state...

[Big5er]

Big5er, just a fine point. you can not do business with yourself, the rule is "between persons" ie, more than one.

And I never said transactions between individuals would be business.I do not know where you got that from. What I said was that transactions between a company and it's employees/officers would be business. Using the information posted by 10ponies it would appear that his HDT is registered to an LLC (a company), not an individual. That makes the transaction between the company and one of it officers, ie: a business transaction.

[wa_desert_rat]

Since vehicles used for religious purposes are exempt, just get ordained as a Unitarian minister and claim that you're out saving souls.

 

WDR

[skp51443]

Universal Life Church is also an option.

 

http://www.ulc.org/

 

 

The Universal Life Church (ULC) is the only denomination worldwide that opens its doors to all people. We welcome all who feel called to ministry to become ordained ministers by completing our free online ordination. This ordination is completely free and legal, and grants you all the rights and privileges afforded to an ordained minister. This includes the ability to perform legal wedding ceremonies, and call yourself a minister, rabbi, priest or pastor. Millions of people have become legally ordained ministers through the Universal Life Church all over the world.

 

Got mine many years ago to save on airline tickets.

[Nuke-E]

Dave, here is one definition of commerce:

 

Commerce is the exchange of items of value between persons or companies. Any exchange of money or items for a product, service or information is considered a transaction of commerce. These trades do not need to occur physically in a single location, and transactions made over the Internet — also known as e-commerce — became widespread during the early 21st century.

 

Phil,

 

I was trying to point out that figuring out whether someone is using a truck in commerce is only part of the equation in Arizona. Their definition includes vehicles used in commerce, as well as vehicles designed for use in commerce. In other words, making the case that he's not engaged in a business or out to make money wouldn't be enough to be exempt. Assuming the truck has been modified since it was used commercially, the truck's owner could try to make the case that it wasn't being used to further a commercial enterprise, and as the designer for the modifications, he designed it for use solely as a recreational vehicle.

 

Your guess is as good as mine as to how far that would get in court. Without some documentation as to where their commercial interpretation comes from (if anywhere), it's not easy to argue against it.

[Big5er]

Dave I agree. To claim vehicles that are "designed" but not "used" in commerce is kind of silly, in my opinion. BUT if AZ is one of those states that makes larger pickups register as "commercial vehicle" then I can see how they are enforcing it on vehicles "designed" for commercial use. It's weird...from my perspective anyway. Why can't they just simplify it? If you weigh this much it is this price and if you don't weigh that much it is that price and just apply it to everyone? That way there would be no interpretation argument.

[Nuke-E]

Why can't they just simplify it? If you weigh this much it is this price and if you don't weigh that much it is that price and just apply it to everyone? That way there would be no interpretation argument.

 

You're sounding waaaay to rational here....

 

Arizona and Indiana excepted, the fuel tax is probably one of the simplest to administer and pay: prices are advertised with tax included, making comparisons easy between different taxing jurisdictions, the revenue (generally) serves the people paying the tax, and it's generally proportional to how much you drive, how heavy your vehicle is (and how much road damage you cause), and how efficient your vehicle is. I'd much rather pay at the pump than have to pay tolls or track my mileage. Here's an interesting read on how the fuel tax developed to where it is now (as of '07): http://financecommission.dot.gov/Documents/Tax%20Foundation%20paper%20on%20Gas%20Tax.pdf

[10ponies]

I lost the court hearing. Way too much to go into here, but my advice, if you are registered over 26,000 pounds or have 3 or more axles do not fuel at the RV pumps in Arizona. If you are cited, you have no chance of winning in court unless you want to spend thousands on an attorney. Even then it is a toss up at best.