- 20 -
passengers using petitioners’ services no matter whether they
were regular subscribers or one-time reservation passengers. We
conclude that the transportation service petitioners provided, by
its very nature, requires irregularity in the routes and
schedules to function properly.8
IV. The ADA Does Not Govern Our Determination
Petitioners argue that it would frustrate the purpose of the
ADA to disallow petitioners’ claimed gasoline tax credit.
Petitioners further argue that the term “scheduled and along
regular routes” should be read in light of the paratransit
regulations enacted under the ADA. We disagree. The ADA is not
a taxing statute, and therefore it has no applicability to
whether petitioners qualify for a credit against their income
taxes under section 34. The particular paratransit service
petitioners provide qualifies under neither the plain language of
section 6421 nor the stated legislative intent. We may not
rewrite any of these provisions.
8In their brief, petitioners offer creative constructions of
“scheduled” and “regular routes” based upon various dictionary
definitions. We decline to address these arguments here because
we find that the legislative history clarifies what type of
service Congress considered to be “scheduled” along “regular
routes”. Petitioners’ proffered plain meaning argument lacks
merit. Further, based on their argument, petitioners conclude
that “regularly” means traveling the same route two or three
times a week. Petitioners failed to establish that their
vehicles traveled the same route more than once a week, let alone
two or three times, and therefore petitioners fail to qualify
under their own definition of “regular routes”.
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