845 A.2d 762 (Pa. 2004), Bell Atlantic Mobile Systems, Inc. v. Commonwealth

Citation:845 A.2d 762, 577 Pa. 328
Party Name:BELL ATLANTIC MOBILE SYSTEMS, INC., Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee. Bell Atlantic Mobile Systems, Inc., Appellant, v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Appellee.
Case Date:March 23, 2004
Court:Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 762

845 A.2d 762 (Pa. 2004)

577 Pa. 328

BELL ATLANTIC MOBILE SYSTEMS, INC., Appellant,

v.

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee.

Bell Atlantic Mobile Systems, Inc., Appellant,

v.

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

March 23, 2004.

Argued May 15, 2003.

Appeal Nos. 103 MAP 2002, 105 MAP 2002 from the Order of the Commonwealth

Page 763

Court entered 7/10/02 at No. 252 FR 1998 which denied Petitioner's exceptions to the Order entered on 5/28/02 from the Order of the Board of Finance and Revenue entered on 1/30/98 at Nos. 9613463 and 9613468.

Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court entered 7/10/02 at No. 1123 FR 1998 which denied Petitioner's exceptions to the Order entered on 5/28/02 from the Order of the Board of Finance and Revenue entered on 11/20/98 at No. 9430303.

Sharon Rose Paxton, James Leland Fritz, Harrisburg, for AWACS, Inc.

D. Michael Fisher, Philadelphia, Karen M. Gard, Harrisburg, for Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Joseph C. Bright, Philadelphia, Kevin Jon Moody, Harrisburg, for Bell Atlantic Mobile Systems, Inc.

Before CAPPY, C.J., and CASTILLE, NIGRO, NEWMAN, SAYLOR, EAKIN and LAMB, JJ.

Prior report: Pa.Cmwlth., 799 A.2d 902.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

The Order of the Commonwealth Court is affirmed.

Justice LAMB did not participate in the decision of this case.

Justice SAYLOR files a dissenting statement.

Justice SAYLOR.

DISSENTING STATEMENT

However incongruous it may seem, the General Assembly had defined the term "tangible personal property," for sales and use tax purposes, to include cellular telecommunications service. See 72 P.S. §§ 7201(m), 7201(rr) (superseded). Therefore, and since the Legislature has also defined the term "manufacture" in terms of the production of "tangible personal property," see 72 P.S. § 7201(c), I agree with Appellants' position that, under the manufacturing exclusion applicable to sales and use taxation, see 72 P.S. § 7201(k), (o), they are entitled to relief from sales and/or use tax assessments related to machinery, equipment, and supplies used in their cellular telecommunications businesses in the relevant taxing periods. 1 As Appellants explain, the Commonwealth Court's central reliance on Suburban Cable TV Co. v. Commonwealth, 131 Pa.Cmwlth. 368, 570 A.2d 601 (1990), aff'd, 527 Pa. 364...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP