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
Only Personnel Records Used to Evaluate Police Officer’s Performance Protected from Disclosure​
INDICTMENT COUNTS ALLEGING FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS RELATING TO PAYROLL AND THE EMPLOYMENT OF A MINOR IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR LAW SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, LEGAL SUFFICIENCY CRITERIA EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT).
ACTION SEEKING RESCISSION OF A CONSERVATION EASEMENT RESTRICTING DEVELOPMENT ON UPSTATE LAND WITHIN THE NEW YORK CITY WATERSHED PROPERLY DISMISSED; UNIQUE LAW RE: MODIFICATION OR EXTINGUISHMENT OF A CONSERVATION EASEMENT EXPLAINED.
CLAIMANT’S CONNECTION TO A CORPORATION WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT FINDING HE WAS NOT TOTALLY UNEMPLOYED.
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO NOTICE COUNTY COURT INTENDED TO RELY ON FAMILY COURT RECORDS WHEN CONSIDERING DEFENDANT’S APPLICATION FOR RECLASSIFICATION AS A LEVEL-ONE SEX OFFENDER; THE THIRD DEPARTMENT NOTED THAT THE PROPER INQUIRY IS WHETHER RECLASSIFICATION IS WARRANTED BY A CHANGE IN CONDITIONS, NOT WHETHER THERE IS SUPPORT FOR THE INITIAL LEVEL-TWO CLASSIFICATION (THIRD DEPT).
CONFLICTING EVIDENCE OF DECEDENT’S TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY AND PETITIONER’S UNDUE INFLUENCE PRECLUDED SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF RESPONDENT’S OBJECTIONS TO THE WILL SUBMITTED FOR PROBATE BY PETITIONER (THIRD DEPT). ​
HEARING OFFICER’S FAILURE TO INQUIRE INTO A WITNESS’S REFUSAL TO TESTIFY REQUIRED ANNULMENT.
DESPITE THE DRIVER’S FAILURE TO USE A TURN SIGNAL AS THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE TRAFFIC STOP, DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON THE GROUND THE STOP WAS ACTUALLY BASED UPON RACIAL PROFILING; IN THE FIRST DEPARTMENT THE “TURN SIGNAL” GROUND FOR THE STOP WOULD BE ENOUGH, EVEN IF THE STOP WAS ACTUALLY MOTIVATED BY DISCRIMINATION; NOT SO IN THE THIRD DEPARTMENT (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...