Boileau v. City of Burlington

Boileau v. City of Burlington  (98-100); 169 Vt. 567; 730 A.2d 1105

[Opinion filed 19-Feb-1999]
[Motion for Reargument denied 16-Mar-1999]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 98-100

                             NOVEMBER TERM, 1998


Paul Boileau	                      }	APPEALED FROM:
                                      }
                                      }
     v.	                              }	Chittenden Superior Court
                                      }	
City of Burlington	              }
                                      }	DOCKET NO. 477-97 CnC	


       In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:


       Plaintiff, the owner and operator of a fishing guide business, appeals
  the superior court's  determination that the City of Burlington had the
  authority to impose a personal property tax upon  his boat's assessed value
  for a year in which the boat was not physically present in Burlington on 
  April 1, the statutory day of assessment.  For the reasons stated in a
  companion case, Mesa  Leasing Ltd. v. City of Burlington, No. 98-037 (Vt.
  Feb. 19, 1999), we affirm the superior  court's judgment.

       The facts are not in dispute.  The subject property is a boat that
  plaintiff uses in the fishing guide  business that he operates on Lake
  Champlain.  In 1996, the year in question, plaintiff rented dock  space for
  the boat in the City of Burlington between May 15 and October 15.  All of
  the boat's  income during 1996 year was derived from the five months that
  it was operated out of the  Burlington dock.  The other seven months, the
  boat was stored in the Town of Colchester.  For  the 1996 tax year, the
  City of Burlington imposed a personal property tax upon the assessed value 
  of the boat.  Plaintiff challenged the tax through the Department of Taxes
  and eventually in  superior court.  In response to the parties' opposing
  summary judgment motions, the court ruled  that Burlington is the permanent
  situs of the boat for tax purposes and thus entitled to tax the boat  on
  its full assessed value.  On appeal, plaintiff argues that the court erred
  because personal  property is taxable only in the town in which the
  property is physically located on April 1 of the  tax year.  In the City's
  view, the superior court correctly concluded that Burlington was the 
  permanent tax situs of the boat in 1996.

       Relying on our analysis in the companion case, Mesa Leasing, we affirm
  the superior court's  judgment.  As in Mesa Leasing, this appeal does not
  involve a dispute between jurisdictions, and  plaintiff has not argued in
  the alternative that the City of Burlington is entitled to only an 
  apportioned share of the tax on the assessed value of his boat.


 



     Affirmed.



BY THE COURT:



_______________________________________
Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Chief Justice

_______________________________________
James L. Morse, Associate Justice

_______________________________________
Denise R. Johnson, Associate Justice

_______________________________________
Marilyn S. Skoglund, Associate Justice