Class A with tag axle - beware of $1000. fine in AZ!

msmith1199 wrote:

lbligh wrote:

Rollnhome wrote:
What is AZ definition of "Passenger Carrying Vehicle"? If it is not a motorhome then the tax doesn't apply no matter of weight or axles.
A simple Google of passenger carrying vehicle comes up with a commercial bus or motorcoach. However it is AZ definition of passenger carrying vehicle that matters in this case.
My next question is then, why do all other vehicles require a special or commercial drivers license and a motor home does not. All passenger carrying vehicles are commercial...why include this singular vehicle, motorhomes, into this otherwise commercial tax?
I think because MHS are Recreational Vehicles not Passenger Carrying Vehicles they are exempt from this otherwise commercial tax.

OK... then why are not RVs listed along with all the other type of vehicles that are exempt. Arizona has taken the time to list the exempt vehicles on their pump posting and RVs are not on that list. Everyone here wants to "interpret" a law when it appears that Arizona has made it pretty simple by listing those vehicles that are exempt.

Now don't take me wrong, I believe that Arizona is wrong not to have included RVs as noncommercial vehicles like every other state, but it is what it is.

Let me try this one more time. This law lists what vehicles are included. If a motorhome is not a passenger carrying vehicle, which I don't think it is, then it's not included to begin with so there is no reason to exempt a vehicle that isn't included. Most of the exemptions listed are for vehicles that otherwise fit the definition of included vehicles such as church buses, but because of who owns them or how they're used the are exempted.

That's why.

Well my friend, the law indeed specifically includes very specific language as to those vehicles that are INCLUDED AND EXCLUDED. All of the so called experts here cannot explain or wish away the facts. I have listed for everyone's edification below ARS 28-5432C which details all vehicles included and excluded. The specific and detailed explanation by the State of Arizona should answer all questions. As everyone should note, there is NO MENTION OF MOTORHOMES OR RVs. The text from the ARS Statute is as follows:

28-5432. Gross weight fees; application; exceptions
A. This article applies to all of the following:
1. A trailer or semitrailer with a gross weight of ten thousand pounds or less and that is used in the furtherance of a commercial enterprise.
2. A motor vehicle or vehicle combination if the motor vehicle or vehicle combination is designed, used or maintained primarily for the transportation of passengers for compensation or for the transportation of property.
3. A hearse, an ambulance or any other vehicle that is used by a mortician in the conduct of the mortician's business.
4. A commercial motor vehicle as defined in section 28-5201.
B. This article does not apply to:
1. A vehicle commonly referred to as a station wagon or to a vehicle commonly known as and referred to by the manufacturer's rating as a three-quarter ton or less pickup truck or three-quarter ton or less van unless such a vehicle is maintained and operated more than one thousand hours in a vehicle registration year for the transportation of passengers or property in the furtherance of a commercial enterprise. An applicant requesting title or registration of a motor vehicle in the name of a commercial enterprise shall pay the fees imposed by this article unless the applicant certifies on the application that the vehicle will not be maintained and operated in the furtherance of a commercial enterprise.
2. A trailer or semitrailer with a declared gross weight of ten thousand pounds or less, if the trailer or semitrailer is not used in the furtherance of a commercial enterprise and the applicant certifies on the application that the vehicle will not be maintained and operated in the furtherance of a commercial enterprise.
C. The following motor vehicles, trailers and semitrailers are exempt from the gross weight fee prescribed in section 28-5433:
1. A motor vehicle, trailer or semitrailer that is owned and operated by a religious institution and that is used exclusively for the transportation of property produced and distributed for charitable purposes without compensation. For the purposes of this paragraph, "religious institution" means a recognized organization that has an established place of meeting for religious worship and that holds regular meetings for that purpose at least once each week in at least five cities or towns in this state.
2. A motor vehicle, trailer or semitrailer that is owned and operated by a nonprofit school that is recognized as being tax exempt by the federal or state government if the motor vehicle, trailer or semitrailer is used exclusively for any of the following:
(a) The transportation of pupils in connection with the school curriculum.
(b) The training of pupils.
(c) The transportation of property for charitable purposes without compensation.
3. A motor vehicle, trailer or semitrailer that is owned by a nonprofit organization in this state that presents to the department a form approved by the director of the division of emergency management pursuant to section 26-318.
4. A vehicle that is owned and operated only for government purposes by a foreign government, a consul or any other official representative of a foreign government, by the United States, by a state or political subdivision of a state or by an Indian tribal government.
5. A motor vehicle that is privately owned and operated exclusively as a school bus pursuant to a contract with a school district. If a privately owned and operated school bus is temporarily operated for purposes other than those prescribed in the definition of school bus in section 28-101, the registering officer shall assess and collect a monthly gross weight fee equal to one-tenth of the annual gross weight fee prescribed by section 28-5433 for each calendar month that the motor vehicle is so operated in this state. The registering officer shall not apportion the gross weight fee for a fraction of a calendar month.

With a bit more research I find that 10Ponies the gentleman that received the ticket for fueling at the wrong pump was filling his "toterhome". Toterhomes are not registered as Recreational Vehicles in Arizona; Toterhomes are registered as trucks. I was wondering why they had to "go over his paperwork".
Therefore according to AZ he was filling his three axle truck at the light class pump.
Now I ask, can anyone give an example of an RV registered mh being cited at the light class pumps....that is other than I know a guy whose uncles brother met a guy in a bar.

Change can be made and the laws more clearly defined. Anyone who has driven in California can see this in effect. Remember those 55 mph while towing signs? They make more sense with the new ones....no ambiguity, no confusion, no doubts..as a retired LEO, I hate the crossover between commercial and non commercial. They should be codified separately to avoid confusion......Dennis

Lets try and make this more simple. The Arizona law says this extra tax and using the appropriate pump that collects that tax is required by “Use Class Vehicles.” Those vehicles are then described below and I included the Arizona definition of those vehicles:

Road Tractor, Truck Tractor, Truck, or Passenger Carrying Vehicle.

Arizona law then defines three of the four classes of vehicle listed:

28. "Road tractor" means a motor vehicle that is designed and used for drawing other vehicles and that is not constructed to carry either a load independently or any part of the weight of a vehicle or load so drawn.

56. "Truck" means a motor vehicle designed or used primarily for the carrying of property other than the effects of the driver or passengers and includes a motor vehicle to which has been added a box, a platform or other equipment for such carrying.

57. "Truck tractor" means a motor vehicle that is designed and used primarily for drawing other vehicles and that is not constructed to carry a load other than a part of the weight of the vehicle and load drawn.

What is missing in AZ law is a definition of “Passenger Carrying Vehicle.” Clearly a motorhome does not fit in any of the other three categories. So this law only applies to a motorhome if a motorhome is classified as a “Passenger Carrying Vehicle” under AZ law. But since AZ law (at least not that we have found yet) defines Passenger Carrying Vehicle lets look at Federal Transportation Law. Every single place I can find in Federal law, as well as every other state law (and even United Kingdom law) that mentions “Passenger-Carrying Vehicle” is referring to a vehicle that is used and designed specifically for carry passengers for hire.

There is absolutely no reason to use the term “Passenger Carrying Vehicle” unless you mean to refer to a vehicle such as a bus used primarily for carrying people. Otherwise you would just say Vehicle!

In fact this AZ law used to specifically refer to a Passenger Carrying Vehicle capable of carrying more than 20 people. So clearly the original definition was meant for a bus. I don't know why they removed the 20 person requirement, unless they simply removed it because they wanted to be consistent with the weight and axle requirement. Under the weight and axle rule it doesn't matter how many passengers it can carry, but only that is a passenger carrying vehicle.

P Kennedy wrote:
Thank you Mr. Bligh I think that is what I said while describing ways to skirt around it for our benefit. "It is what it is" and with some people putting in some research time they may have insight in how to approach the state government but it is going to take an active interested local lawyer to bring the motion forward or public pressure addressed by the Arizona senator to see the error and have it corrected. It was still a long road to get here based on heresay as we have still never seen the warning posted or heard from the victim of the citation.

Speak for yourself Mr Heresay (Hearsay). I did read what the person wrote who got the ticket. And once again if you're so concerned about how much discussion is taking place on this subject, why are you in the discussion?

unsubscribed

lbligh wrote:

Rollnhome wrote:
What is AZ definition of "Passenger Carrying Vehicle"? If it is not a motorhome then the tax doesn't apply no matter of weight or axles.
A simple Google of passenger carrying vehicle comes up with a commercial bus or motorcoach. However it is AZ definition of passenger carrying vehicle that matters in this case.
My next question is then, why do all other vehicles require a special or commercial drivers license and a motor home does not. All passenger carrying vehicles are commercial...why include this singular vehicle, motorhomes, into this otherwise commercial tax?
I think because MHS are Recreational Vehicles not Passenger Carrying Vehicles they are exempt from this otherwise commercial tax.

OK... then why are not RVs listed along with all the other type of vehicles that are exempt. Arizona has taken the time to list the exempt vehicles on their pump posting and RVs are not on that list. Everyone here wants to "interpret" a law when it appears that Arizona has made it pretty simple by listing those vehicles that are exempt.

Now don't take me wrong, I believe that Arizona is wrong not to have included RVs as noncommercial vehicles like every other state, but it is what it is.

Let me try this one more time. This law lists what vehicles are included. If a motorhome is not a passenger carrying vehicle, which I don't think it is, then it's not included to begin with so there is no reason to exempt a vehicle that isn't included. Most of the exemptions listed are for vehicles that otherwise fit the definition of included vehicles such as church buses, but because of who owns them or how they're used the are exempted.

That's why.

dodge guy wrote:
The one big positive here is that any DP over 26k lbs carries enough fuel to fill up at either border of the state, visit where they want in the state, then leave and fill up outside the state!

Although that isn`t really isn`t an issue, because the law has been interpreted wrong by AZ. they are just hurting themselves. by filling up out of state, they stand to lose a lot of fuel tax $$$

But you're still breaking the law then. If you did into the law, there is actually a part of it that says the tax applies to fuel consumed within the state. If you fill up in Arizona on the way out, and only use 10 gallons in AZ and the other 90 gallons you bought out of Arizona, you can submit a claim to get a refund of the taxes on that 90 gallons. And there is also a part of the law that says if you purchase fuel out of state, but drive the vehicle through the state, you are supposed to pay the fuel tax on the fuel you burned while driving in Arizona! Yes, it is actually in the law.

Francesca Knowles wrote:

DSDP Don wrote:
LEO's, including the Fuel Tax enforcers, often will find a loop hole or a new law and abuse it before modifications can be made. .

The law as current has been on the books since 1983. The only thing that appears to be "new" is a stepping up of enforcement when it comes to three-axled diesel motorhomes. Maybe owners of other three-axle vehicle types started making noise or something.

Frankly, it really looks to me like a case of three-axle diesel RV's having just slipped through the cracks all these many long years.

Once again no. I posted the text of this very law from 1998. In 1998 the statute specifically referenced "Passenger Carrying Vehicles designed to carry more than 20 passengers." Clearly, that is not a motorhome! Now for some reason they removed the 20 passenger part but they did not remove the "Passenger Carrying" part. So I'm still convinced this law doesn't apply to motorhomes at all even if they have three axles, and the people enforcing it are reading it wrong.

DSDP Don wrote:
I posted early in this thread and did some groundwork, including an email to FMCA and AZ DOT and the Fuel Tax folks (along with "Executive").

Here is how I see the issue. Motor homes are pretty much exempt from any commercial rules, like special driver's licenses and stopping at scales.

I believe there was an omission in the law that should have excluded motor homes, but as some pointed out, it was probably never thought of or thought to be necessary.

Lastly, LEO's, including the Fuel Tax enforcers, often will find a loop hole or a new law and abuse it before modifications can be made. They can be their own worse enemy.....I know....I was an LEO for 34 years. Hopefully, if this turns out to really be a problem, it will be addressed by Arizona. If one person defeats the ticket in court, especially during a court trial, it will become Case Law and motor homes will be exempted.

One person defeating a ticket doesn't make it case law. Otherwise murder would be legal because people have been acquitted of murder charges before.