safety standards in certain limited circumstances such as those involving vehicles with historical or technological significance. See 64 Fed.Reg. 37,878-01. Contrastingly, the purpose of the demonstrator exception to the imposition of luxury tax is to exempt from liability those car dealers who are acting merely as “middle men.” Underscoring the statutory distinctions, defendant adverts to the well-settled tenet of statutory construction that absent an explicit relationship between the two statutes, a definition from one of the statutory schemes should not be read into the other. Def.’s Mot. 16 (citing United States v. Reorganized CF & I Fabricators of Utah, Inc., 518 U.S. 213, 219, 116 S.Ct. 2106, 135 L.Ed.2d 506 (1996); Papillon Airways, Inc. v. United States, 105 Fed.Cl. 154 (2012) (<HOLDING>)). It is the view of the court that the DOT
holding that whether or not defendants are holders of the note is not dispositive as to whether they have standing to foreclose on the property holding that a faa certificate was not dispositive as to whether an airline operated on an established line for purposes of the excise tax exemption holding one who claims tax exemption has burden of showing entitlement to exemption holding that a retailer lacked standing to challenge a federal excise tax assessed against a thirdparty fuel supplier even where the retailer was required by contract to pay the supplier an amount equal to the excise tax upfront at the time of purchase since the alleged injury  in the form of increased fuel costs was not occasionedby the government holding that constitutional challenge to controlled substance excise tax must pursue administrative routes followed by appeal in tax court