is also relevant to question whether in Virginia the tax must be levied statewide. The levy of taxes by special purpose districts, which, as a matter of general practice, are referred to as subdivisions of the State, are limited to the area of the district. The practice with respect to taxation by special purpose districts provides a rather good indication that the answer should be in the negative. District of Columbia And The Taxing Power The status of the District of Columbia as a federal territory presents the novel question of whether that Government may participate through WMATA in the levy of a regional tax. Article 1, § 8, Clause 1, of the Constitution of the United States provides that "all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States." Since Congress has exclusive legislative power over the District of Columbia under Clause 17 of that Section, it is pertinent to consider whether legislation by or on behalf of the District of Columbia which provided for the levy of a tax on less than the entire United States would be valid. Although this precise question does not appear to have been previously considered, the trend of decisions would seem to support the validity of such an arrangement. In Binns v. United States, 194 U.S. 486 (1904), a license tax levied by Congress only in the Terri 62-418 O 76 Pt. 2 -35 tory of Alaska was upheld on the ground that the tax was a local tax for the purpose of defraying the expense of the territorial government and not "to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and welfare of the United States." The Court held that only taxes for the latter purpose are subject to uniformity requirements. The rationale of that case was that Congress was acting in its capacity as the local legislature for Alaska and, in such capacity, the Congress, like any state legislature unrestricted by constitutional provisions, has plenary power over the levy of taxes. Although the District of Columbia is not a State, it has been judicially determined that the District may enter into compacts with the States. it would seem that, with respect to the delegation to WMATA of a power to levy a regional tax, the District of Columbia presents no problem different from, or in addition to, those applicable to Maryland and Virginia. Thus, November 24, 1975 Request Local Jurisdictions Submission #4 Question 3b. Submit a legal opinion on whether the local jurisdictions are liable for operating deficits and capital costs if local funds have not been appropriated. The local jurisdictions' legal liability for METRO capital construction costs is presently limited to the amounts reflected in a Capital Receipts Schedule appended to a Capital Contributions Agreement executed among WMATA and all participating local jurisdictions in 1970. The amounts allocated therein to each jurisdiction were based upon the originally estimated cost of construction of the METRO system. However, section 3.3 of that Agreement recognized that the capital contributions provided for therein were based upon estimates and would be subject to subsequent adjustment. Each jurisdiction pledged in the contract to each other jurisdiction and to the Authority its faithful cooperation and best efforts to obtain all authorizations required by law to provide any subsequent increase in its allocation of capital contributions. The Agreement also requires the Authority to take all reasonable measures permitted by the Compact or otherwise by law to collect and enforce prompt payment to or for its account of all capital contributions to be made by each jurisdiction in accordance with the Agreement. With respect to operating subsidy allocations to the various local jurisdictions, the Authority annually budgets in advance the amounts required from each jurisdiction. A Transit Service Agreement, designed to commit each jurisdiction to its respective allocated share of the operating subsidy, has been executed by the Northern Virginia Transportation Commission on behalf of the Northern Virginia jurisdictions. Similar Agreements are awaiting execution by the District of Columbia and the Maryland jurisdictions. Should any jurisdiction elect not to accept its full allocated share of the operating subsidy, the alternatives would be an offsetting fare increase, reduction in service, or a combination of both within that jurisdiction. Further, it is the Authority's position that, to the extent service has been rendered to a particular jurisdiction, the Authority has a valid legal claim on a quantum meruit theory for Sums sufficient to pay the operating expenses related to providing such service, less revenues derived from the operation. CAPITAL CONTRIBUTIONS AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made this 13th day of March, 1969, by and between the WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY (hereinafter referred to as "Authority"), a body corporate and politic created by interstate compact between Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia, the WASHINGTON SUBURBAN TRANSIT DISTRICT, a body corporate and politic created by law in Maryland, the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, and ARLINGTON COUNTY and FAMFAX COUNTY, Virginia, and the Cities of ALEXANDRIA, FALLS CHURCH and FAIRFAX, Virginia (such Counties and Cities, together with the WASHINGTON SUBURBAN TRANSIT DISTRICT and the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, being hereinafter referred to, collectively, as "Political Subdivisions" and, individually, as a "Political Subdivision"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Authority has been created by the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Compact as an instrumentality and agency of Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia to provide a regional transit system and service for the area described in such Compact as the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Zone;... WHEREAS, the Authority in accordance with the provisions of Article VI of said Compact on March 1, 1968 adopted a Regional Rapid Rail Transit Plan and Program known as "Adopted Regional System1963, and on February 7, 1969 adopted certain revisions to and otherwise refined, the Adopted Regional System-1968, (hereinafter referred to as "Adopted Regional System-1968 (Revised)") which, among other things, specifies the facilities of such regional transit system to be acquired and constructed; WHEREAS, the Authority in accordance with Article VII of said Compact on February 7, 1969, adopted a plan for financing the construction and acquisition of such regional transit system and the operation thereof which proposes, among other things, that the presently estimated costs of construction and acquisition of such regional transit system, including administration expenses and other costs of the Authority related or incidental thereto, be financed by the issuance of $525.000.000 transit revenue bonds of the Authority payable from revenues derived from such regional transit system and the payment of $1.720.566.000 aggregate amount of capital contributions, approxi |