Wrong Pump in AZ

Rollnhome wrote:
Nothing to do with IFTA????. It was taken from their web site. If you mean directly with the AZ tax....correct. It does however exibit an international fuel tax regulators (in which AZ participates) interpertation reguarding very similar language used in the Arizonas light class vehicle description.
The sticker on a fuel pump is much like an IRS pamphlet not all is disclosed. To truly get all your deductions you need the entirety of the law and regulations disclosed. That can be a gargantuan task. Tomorrow when their office opens I am sure more will be disclosed and the truth shall be revealed....maybe.....:)

This is a State of AZ tax. Do you understand what IFTA is and why it exists? Just asking.

Also, you are correct about the pump decal. It is simply the consumer warning. Note that the decal clearly identifies the Arizona Statute ARS 28-5432 for all exceptions. Also, if someone places a call to ADOT, hopefully they will get the published reference document(s) where anything other than what is already identified in ARS 28-5432 is and where it can be found, and not just talk to a clerk or anyone else. As we all know, that will be worth nothing. That would be like calling the IRS and getting a different answer each time you call.

I clicked on it to see if the issue has been settled among all of you. Obviously not.

2gypsies wrote:
Wow! I can't believe anyone is still posting to this. It's been hashed and re-hashed. We might see you in Arizona this winter!! :)

Why did you click on it then? I simply can't understand why people have such an issue with people discussing things on a "DISCUSSION" forum. And then to prove how crazy they think it is they feel the need to contribute to the discussion by being critical of others for participating in the discussion???

Wow! I can't believe anyone is still posting to this. It's been hashed and re-hashed. We might see you in Arizona this winter!! :)

Nothing to do with IFTA????. It was taken from their web site. If you mean directly with the AZ tax....correct. It does however exibit an international fuel tax regulators (in which AZ participates) interpertation reguarding very similar language used in the Arizonas light class vehicle description.
The sticker on a fuel pump is much like an IRS pamphlet not all is disclosed. To truly get all your deductions you need the entirety of the law and regulations disclosed. That can be a gargantuan task. Tomorrow when their office opens I am sure more will be disclosed and the truth shall be revealed....maybe.....:)

lbligh wrote:
they only fall under the definition of "truck" if they are designed as used to haul cargo.

And obviously pick-up trucks haul cargo. Please note ARS 28-5432.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..." Note that there is no mention of motorhomes or any exception listed for noncommercial pick-up trucks over 3/4 ton. See, as I keep saying, the State of Arizona SPECIFICALLY lists those vehicles that are exempt. However, some here (I won't use any names) want to believe that only some units are shown as "exempt" but others that fit all other requirements are "exempt" because they believe so. As I said before, Arizona has not been silent on "exempt" vehicles and as a result, their exempt list is all inclusive.

This is the definition of truck as it is used in the statute that requires vehicles to fuel at the commercial pumps:

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.

So per the original law that lists the four classes of vehicle that have to the commercial pumps, a "truck" over 26K or with more than two axles is included. This is why I originally said the enforcement officials in AZ who wrote the original ticket may have been classifying the Toterhome that got the ticket as a truck. Now if it is not a toy hauler and doesn't have a cargo area, then I don't think it fits the definition of truck.

NeverHome2 wrote:
Tsk, tsk.... where do I start....

msmith1199 wrote:

It just needs clarification to the agencies enforcing it...

Who should do the clarification? The best people to clarify are the people who wrote the law. You are going to say that they may be all dead or out of office but that is exactly why the clarification should be in writing which means an amendment to the law which means the legislature should clarify in writing. So I guess we are in agreement?

msmith1199 wrote:
...and that clarification should be made public.

All laws are already public. I guess what you are saying is that the sticker will need to be changed when the law is amended in writing. Good idea...I agree.

msmith1199 wrote:
doesn't not

Double negative...enough said about that.

msmith1199 wrote:
...with a couple of possible exceptions.

No exceptions were noted in the law. Obviously they considered the law all inclusive so totorhomes should fall in one or other category. I guess there should be something in the law about totorhomes. I agree that the law need to be more specific. I guess we agree again... the law needs rewritten.

msmith1199 wrote:
...they only fall under the definition of "truck" if they are designed as used to haul cargo.

EVERYTHING hauls cargo. Now you need to define "cargo". Or maybe this need to be in the law...rewritten to include this definition? I think we agree again, the law needs to be rewritten.

I think we agree! :B

Laws can be clarified in a number of ways. The states Attorney General can issue a formal opinion on the matter. The courts could also rule on the matter. Or the administrative agency in charge of enforcing the law could also put out direction on it's enforcement and make it clear to both the public and their employees.

Yeah, typo on the double negative, so shoot me! :)

And "Truck" is very clearly defined under AZ law and I've already posted that someplace, not looking it up again.

NeverHome2 wrote:

lbligh wrote:

Absolutely!!! In fact, if you have been following what I have written on this issue, I mentioned as we own property in AZ, I have made contact with our Arizona State Senator who is also the President of the Senate. I voiced my concern that Arizona appears to be the only State that I know of with this issue where noncommercial RVs are not exempt from additional fuel taxes as with commercial vehicles asking him to please look into the matter.

My apologies for not catching this. Too much to follow!!

If you PM your state senator's name, I will be glad to send a letter from an out-of-stater that would like to see this law changed. It can have an effect if enough people (even out-of-state) raise the issue.

PM sent.

they only fall under the definition of "truck" if they are designed as used to haul cargo.

And obviously pick-up trucks haul cargo. Please note ARS 28-5432.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..." Note that there is no mention of motorhomes or any exception listed for noncommercial pick-up trucks over 3/4 ton. See, as I keep saying, the State of Arizona SPECIFICALLY lists those vehicles that are exempt. However, some here (I won't use any names) want to believe that only some units are shown as "exempt" but others that fit all other requirements are "exempt" because they believe so. As I said before, Arizona has not been silent on "exempt" vehicles and as a result, their exempt list is all inclusive.

moisheh wrote:
You do not want to get involved with IFTA. One would have to record your mileage in every state. A nightmare. Regardless it does not apply to RV's. You still have to pay fuel tax but only for the amount of fuel you use in each state.

Moisheh

You are absolutely correct. Getting so-called professional drivers to PROPERLY log their mileage many times is a giant PITA! Heaven forbid if RV drivers had this requirement.