Full text
In re Tax Appeal of Travelocity.Com., L.P. v. Director of Taxation
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCAP-13-0002896 02-APR-2015 08:36 AM
SCAP-13-0002896
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI
In the Matter of the Tax Appeal of TRAVELOCITY.COM, L.P., Petitioners and Respondents/Appellees-Cross-Appellants,
vs.
DIRECTOR OF TAXATION, STATE OF HAWAIʻI, Respondent and Petitioner/Appellant-Cross-Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT (T.A. NO. 11-1-0021 AND CONSOLIDATED CASES: 11-1-0022, 11-1-0023, 11-1-0026, 11-1-0027, 11-1-0029, 11-1-0030, 11-1-0031, 11-1-0032, 11-1-0033, 12-1-0287, 12-1-0288, 12-1-0289, 12-1-0292, 12-1-0293, 12-1-0294, 12-1-0295, 12-1-0297, 12-1-0299, and 12-1-0300)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ., and Circuit Judge Lee, in place of Acoba, J., recused)
Upon consideration of Respondent and Petitioner/Appellant-Cross-Appellee Director of Taxation’s motion for reconsideration, filed on March 27, 2015, the papers in support, and the records and files herein, it does not appear that this court has overlooked or misapprehended points of law or fact. See Dir. of Taxation v. Med. Underwriters of Cal., 115 *2 Hawaiʻi 180, 194-95, 166 P.3d 353, 367-68 (2007) (authorization of taxpayer to transact business under a registration statute does not inform the question as to taxpayer’s tax liability). 1 Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is denied.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, April 2, 2015.
Douglas S. Chin, /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald Hugh R. Jones, Girard D. Lau, /s/ Paula A. Nakayama Kimberly Tsumoto Guidry, Warren Price, III, /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna Kenneth T. Okamoto, Robert A. Marks, /s/ Richard W. Pollack Gary Cruciani, and Steven D. Wolens /s/ Randal K.O. Lee for Director of Taxation, State of Hawaiʻi
Paul Alston, Pamela W. Bunn, and Ronald I. Heller for Travelocity.com, et al.
1 As stated by the Director of Taxation in its answering brief regarding the General Excise Tax claims, “[S]tatutory construction questions pertaining to regulation of businesses are separate from questions pertaining to whether their revenues should be taxed.” (Citing Med. Underwriters of Cal., 115 Hawaiʻi at 194-95, 166 P.3d at 367-68). We further note that the Director of Taxation contended that “the OTCs improperly rel[ied]” upon the same definition of “travel agency” that the Director of Taxation directs this court to rely on in the motion for reconsideration.