Galaxy’s Edge Differences: Breakfasts at Docking Bay 7

Share This!Disney has started to post menus for Galaxy’s Edge, and we’re noticing some differences between the California menus and the Florida menus.One interesting item of note is that the California menu for Galaxy’s Edge now notes that breakfast service at Docking Bay 7 is limited during the weekdays.So if you’re looking for hot breakfast on Batuu Monday-Thursday, this isn’t the dining location you’re looking for.Also of note are some differences in the non-alcoholic beverages. The passionfruit kombucha-based “Batuubucha Tea” is not listed as being offered in Florida, nor is the Phattro (tea, lemonade, and desert pear). Instead, Florida gets a limeade-based drink.Moof Juice is offered at both locations.Overall, prices for food are similar, but Florida prices are slightly higher for some options (for instance, a large fountain drink will run you $4.19 in California and $4.49 in Florida and a “Black Caf [coffee] is $2.99 in California and $3.29 in Florida).One other disappointing note, presently Walt Disney World does not have the allergy-friendly breakdown on their menu the way the Disneyland menu does.  Hopefully as we get closer to opening, the menu will have those options clearly delineated on the site.As always, more changes will be coming in the days leading up to and after the opening of Galaxy’s Edge, but it is exciting to see information becoming available now.

U.S. Supreme Court Review Sought for Violation of Commerce Clause

A utility company held liable for Nevada use tax on coal purchases made in Arizona is seeking U.S. Supreme Court review of its case. When making the coal purchases, the Nevada company paid both:Arizona transaction privilege tax (TPT); andNevada use tax.In its ruling, the Nevada Supreme Court denied the company both:a refund of use tax; anda credit against use tax for the Arizona tax paid.In its petition for review, the company asked:whether proof that a tax scheme violated the dormant U.S. Commerce Clause by favoring in-state interests over out-of-state interests was sufficient to entitle the disfavored competitors to a remedy.While the Nevada courts held the statutory tax rules were unconstitutional under the dormant Commerce Clause, the company was not entitled to a refund. No favored competitors benefited from the discrimination that occurred under the statutes. Further, the courts denied the company a credit because the Arizona tax paid was not a sales tax.Nevada Tax RefundThe Nevada Supreme Court made two rulings in denying a refund for the Nevada taxes.First, the sales and use tax exemption for minerals mined in Nevada could not be constitutionally harmonized with the state’s imposition of use tax on coal shipped into the state. Sales of coal in Nevada are subject to tax if the seller bought the coal out of state. However, sales of coal mined in Nevada are exempt from sales tax because the Nevada coal is subject to a net proceeds tax. To extend the exemption would have the “absurd result” of out-of-state mine proceeds avoiding sales, use, and net proceeds tax.Second, even if the statutes unconstitutionally discriminated against interstate commerce, the company did not indicate which competitors  benefited from the application of the statutes. Notably, the court rejected the claim that geothermal, oil, and natural gas power plants were competitors of the coal power plant.Arizona Tax CreditFinally, the company was denied a tax credit against Nevada use tax for Arizona privilege tax paid on the coal. The Nevada Supreme Court noted that:the tax was not a sales tax; andthe company had agreed to pay the tax as part of its contract with the Arizona mining company.Petition for ReviewIn its petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, the company noted that this petition should be granted:to ensure that parties subjected to an unconstitutional deprivation of property are afforded recompense and to deter states from enacting unconstitutional legislation in the first place;in light of the important public interest in ensuring that litigants subjected to unconstitutional taxation are afforded a meaningful remedy; andbecause this case presented the question of whether the differential tax treatment of competitors within the same market establishes injury entitling a disfavored taxpayer to a remedy.Southern California Edison Co. v. State of Nevada Dept. of Taxation, U.S. Supreme Court, Dkt. No. 17-755, petition for certiorari filed November 21, 2017; Southern California Edison Co. v. State of Nevada Dept. of Taxation, Nevada Supreme Court, July 27, 2017, ¶201-004Login to read more tax news on CCH® AnswerConnect or CCH® Intelliconnect®.Not a subscriber? Sign up for a free trial or contact us for a representative.