AGO 1949-51 No. 144.

• Case Date: October 13, 1949
• Court: Washington

Washington Attorney General Opinions 1949. AGO 1949-51 No. 144. October 13, 1949[Orig. Op. Page 1]PRIVATE1. A trailer which is "not designed primarily for use upon public streets and highways" is not a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of the statute imposing the motor vehicle excise, but is subject to payment of a personal property tax thereon.2. Payment of the motor vehicle excise is not a condition precedent to the issuance of a motor vehicle license upon a vehicle which is not a "motor vehicle" within the definition of that term in the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax Act.State Tax Commission Insurance Building Olympia, WashingtonCite as: AGO 1949-51 No. 144Attention: Honorable E. W. Anderson, Commissioner Gentlemen: We have your letter of September 1, 1949, in which you ask the following question: Must the owner of a low flat-bed trailer designed primarily for conveying produce in orchards and not designed for or used nor normally used on the highways, and who has been assessed the personal property tax on such trailer, pay the motor vehicle excise tax in order to get a motor vehicle license? The conclusions reached may be summarized as follows: 1. A trailer which is "not designed primarily for use upon public streets and highways" is not a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of the statute imposing the motor vehicle excise, but is subject to payment of a personal property tax thereon. 2. Payment of the motor vehicle excise is not a condition precedent to the issuance of a motor vehicle license upon a vehicle which is not a "motor vehicle" within the definition of that term in the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax Act. ANALYSIS You have directed our attention to our opinion to the Tax Commission dated March 20, 1944, and state that it, being upon a different set of facts, does not appear to answer your present inquiry. We agree with you that the opinion referred to was based upon a different set of facts. The [Orig. Op. Page 2] situation there involved was one where the owner of the truck had paid the personal property tax, and had subsequently obtained his motor vehicle license at that time paying the motor vehicle excise tax. The question was whether he was entitled to a refund of one of the taxes. We concluded that the ad valorem tax and the excise tax were mutually exclusive, and that in this case...