opinion: UNITED STATES v. LANE MOTOR CO.
  No. 499.
  Decided February 9, 1953.
  Solicitor General Cummings for the United States.
  B. E. Harkey for respondent.
  Per Curiam.
  In this proceeding, the Government sought the forfeiture of an automobile and of a truck under the provisions of § 3116 of the Internal Revenue Code in the District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. That Section allows the seizure and forfeiture of property “intended for use in violating” the alcohol tax laws, as well as property “which has been so used.” The respondent, alleging an interest in the two vehicles, contested the forfeitures.
  The district judge found the facts to be that the truck and automobile had each been used by the operator of an illegal distillery to drive a number of miles from his home and then parked at a point one-half mile or more from the distillery, the operator walking the rest of the way. The district judge found that the Government had not shown, as it had alleged, that the vehicles had been used for transporting materials or utensils for use at the distillery, and ruled that the facts shown did not justify a forfeiture. The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed, 199 F. 2d 495.
  The Government has petitioned for a writ of certiorari showing that, while the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in United States v. One 1948 Plymouth Sedan, 198 F. 2d 399 (1952), held in accord with the Tenth Circuit, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has taken a contrary view, United States v. One 1950 Ford Half-Ton Pickup Automobile Truck, 195 F. 2d 857 (1952). Certio-rari is granted in order to resolve this conflict.
  We think it clear that a vehicle used solely for commuting to an illegal distillery is not used in violating the revenue laws.
  Certiorari granted, and the judgment affirmed. ..
instruction: What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the bases on which the Supreme Court rested its decision with regard to the legal provision that the Court considered in the case. Consider "judicial review (national level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of the federal government, including an interstate compact. Consider "judicial review (state level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of a state or local government. Consider "statutory construction" for cases where the majority interpret a federal statute, treaty, or court rule; if the Court interprets a federal statute governing the powers or jurisdiction of a federal court; if the Court construes a state law as incompatible with a federal law; or if an administrative official interprets a federal statute. Do not consider "statutory construction" where an administrative agency or official acts "pursuant to" a statute, unless the Court interprets the statute to determine if administrative action is proper. Consider "interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order" if the majority treats federal administrative action in arriving at its decision.Consider "diversity jurisdiction" if the majority said in approximately so many words that under its diversity jurisdiction it is interpreting state law. Consider "federal common law" if the majority indicate that it used a judge-made "doctrine" or "rule; if the Court without more merely specifies the disposition the Court has made of the case and cites one or more of its own previously decided cases unless the citation is qualified by the word "see."; if the case concerns admiralty or maritime law, or some other aspect of the law of nations other than a treaty; if the case concerns the retroactive application of a constitutional provision or a previous decision of the Court; if the case concerns an exclusionary rule, the harmless error rule (though not the statute), the abstention doctrine, comity, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or if the case concerns a "rule" or "doctrine" that is not specified as related to or connected with a constitutional or statutory provision. Consider "Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction" otherwise (i.e., the residual code); for issues pertaining to non-statutorily based Judicial Power topics; for cases arising under the Court's original jurisdiction; in cases in which the Court denied or dismissed the petition for review or where the decision of a lower court is affirmed by a tie vote; or in workers' compensation litigation involving statutory interpretation and, in addition, a discussion of jury determination and/or the sufficiency of the evidence.