You are here: / / Conflict Between Federal and State Law Required Application of Federal...

Conflict Between Federal and State Law Required Application of Federal Law—Carrier of “Household Goods” Not Entitled to Tax Exemptions Allowed by State Law but Not Allowed by Federal Law

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Egan, determined the narrower definition of “household goods” in federal law preempted the broader definition in state law (Transportation Law; Tax Law).  Petitioner, a moving company, was therefore not entitled to exemptions from the state tax law for carriers of “household goods” based on the state definition:

…[T]his matter presents an instance of conflict preemption, which occurs when “compliance with both federal and state [law] is a physical impossibility,” or where the state law at issue — here, Transportation Law § 2 (15) and its corresponding impact upon the availability of the exemption set forth in Tax Law § 504 (5) — “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress” … .

Simply put, the federal and state definitions of household goods stand in direct conflict with one another and, consistent with the doctrine of conflict preemption, the more expansive definition of household goods set forth in Transportation Law § 2 (15) (b) and (c) must yield to its more restrictive federal counterpart. To hold otherwise would frustrate Congress’ long-standing regulation of this particular aspect of interstate commerce. Accordingly, in order to avail itself of the exemption embodied in Tax Law § 504 (5), petitioner — as a federally registered motor carrier engaged in the interstate transport of household goods — must demonstrate that its shipments qualify as household goods within the meaning of 49 USC § 13102 (10) (A) and (B). Matter of Atlas Van Lines Inc v Tax Appeals Trib of the State of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 07219, 3rd Dept 10-23-14

 

You might also like
COMMISSIONER AND CENTRAL OFFICE REVIEW COMMITTEE ARE NOT NECESSARY PARTIES FOR A REVIEW OF A DISCIPLINARY DETERMINATION 3RD DEPT.
Respondents Must Demonstrate Why Request Not Specific Enough For Extraction from Electronic Documents/Claim that Documents Are Exempt from Disclosure Is Not Enough to Defeat the Request—Remedy Is In Camera Review
SETTING A RETURN DATE LESS THAN 20 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THE ARTICLE 78 PETITION WAS NOT, UNDER THE FACTS, A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT; THE PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
Math Tutor Was an Independent Contractor, Not an Employee
FORMER SAME SEX PARTNER WHO AGREED TO THE CONCEPTION OF A CHILD CARRIED BY HER FORMER PARTNER DEMONSTRATED SHE HAD STANDING AS A PARENT TO SEEK PARENTING TIME WITH THE CHILD (THIRD DEPT). ​
THE PROSECUTOR REFUSED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MURDER TRIAL ARGUING THAT THE JUDGE’S PRECLUSION OF EVIDENCE MADE THE PROSECUTION IMPOSSIBLE; IN THE PROSECUTOR’S ABSENCE AT TRIAL, THE JUDGE DISMISSED THE INDICTMENT PURSUANT TO CPL 290.10; THE JUDGE DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT; WRIT OF PROHIBITION GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).
EVEN IF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE INSURER AND CLAIMANT INSURANCE BROKER INCLUDED ALL THE STATUTORY FACTORS IN LABOR LAW 511, THE BROKER WILL BE CONSIDERED AN EMPLOYEE IF THE SERVICES ACTUALLY PROVIDED BY THE BROKER ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE CONTRACT PROVISIONS (THIRD DEPT).
THE MARIJUANA REGULATION AND TAXATION ACT (MRTA) APPLIES TO THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT A SUPPRESSION HEARING AND PRECLUDES A FINDING OF PROBABLE CAUSE TO SEARCH A VEHICLE BASED SOLELY ON THE ODOR OF MARIJUANA; THEREFORE THE STATUTE APPLIES HERE WHERE, ALTHOUGH THE SEARCH WAS PRE-ENACTMENT, THE SUPPRESSION HEARING WAS POST-ENACTMENT (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Failure to Strictly Comply with Notice Rules of the Real Property Tax Law Required... Surrogate’s Court Abused Its Discretion In Awarding Attorney’s Fees...