- 18 -
reservation passengers and the unpredictability of subscription
changes, additions, and cancellations guaranteed that the routes
would vary significantly from one day to the next. Such variable
scheduling by its nature cannot be considered to constitute a
“regularly scheduled service along regular routes”.
Petitioners again rely on the “predominant use” found in the
Senate report to argue that the transportation was serviced along
regular routes. Petitioners argue that the implication of that
language, which was set forth supra p. 14 suggests that if a bus
is used over 50 percent in providing scheduled transportation
along regular routes, then it qualifies under section 6421.
Based upon the premise that over 50 percent of their services
were subscription riders, petitioners argue that they meet the
“predominant use” standard.
Petitioners’ argument contains several flaws. First,
petitioners failed to establish that their vans and sedans were
used more than 50 percent in furnishing subscription services.
Petitioners attempted to elicit such information from their
witnesses at trial; however, neither the president of Zuni nor
the general manager of MTMC could provide that information based
on personal knowledge or any other credible source.6 Second,
6The most that these witnesses could account for is an
estimate that over 50 percent of the clients were subscription
passengers. The witnesses admitted that they did not know
exactly (beyond an “informed guess”) what percentage of the
(continued...)
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011