Barrett Inv. Co. v. State Tax Commission
| Decision Date | 06 January 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 9872,9872 |
| Citation | 15 Utah 2d 97,387 P.2d 998 |
| Parties | d 97 BARRETT INVESTMENT COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. The STATE TAX COMMISSION of Utah, Defendant. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Lee W. Hobbs, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff.
A. Pratt Kesler, Atty. Gen., M. Reed Hunter, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salt Lake City, for respondent.
Barrett Investment Company seeks review of a decision and order of the defendant, State Tax Commission of Utah, imposing a deficiency use tax assessment on out of state purchases of parts of machinery and equipment which became component parts of a ski lift erected near Brighton, Utah, and upon which parts no sales or use tax has been paid.
It is plaintiff's contention that the parts of machinery and equipment purchased out of the state which were used to manufacture or assemble the ski lift are exempt from the use tax under the provisions of Sec. 59-16-4(d) and (h), U.C.A.1953, 1 because plaintiff collects and pays a sales tax on admissions paid for the use of the ski lift. It argues that the only use that can be made of the ski lift is through the charging of admissions. Since these admissions are subject to the sales tax, it follows that the parts which plaintiff used to assemble the ski lift are exempt from the use tax because (1) the ski lift is property, the gross receipts for the use of which is subject to the sales tax under the laws of our state; and (2) it was property which became an ingredient or component part of property which plaintiff manufactured for the purpose of using in its business for a profitable use upon which use a sales tax was collected and paid.
Plaintiff's business is the selling of rides on the ski lift for which it charges fees for admissions. The sales tax is collected and paid on these admission charges. The use tax imposed is for parts purchased outside the state by plaintiff and used within the state to manufacture the ski lift. No sales or use tax has been paid for these parts. In determining whether the purchases are exempt it is helpful to keep in mind the legislative purpose in enacting the sales and use tax acts.
As pointed out by this court in Union Portland Cement Co. v. State Tax Commission, on rehearing, 2 the sales and use tax acts are correlative and complementary to each other. The use tax act was enacted so as to avoid competition and discrimination against purchase of goods subject to the sales tax and the use of similar goods within the state which would not be subject to the sales tax because the transactions involved interstate commerce or because, as in the instant case, the purchasers went outside the state to buy the goods but used them within the state. The sales and use tax acts being complementary to each other the exemptions therein should be construed so as to effectuate the same purpose, that is, if a purchase of tangible personal property is exempt under one act it should be exempt under the other and vice versa.
Under the provisions of our sales tax act only retail sales of tangible personal property and sales of certain services and admissions to places of amusement, entertainment or recreation are subject to the tax provided therein. 3 Sales of tangible personal property purchased for resale or services which are purchased for resale, and goods which become a component part of other tangible personal property manufactured by a person engaged in the business of manufacturing such tangible personal property for resale, profit or use 4 are deemed wholesale purchases and exempt from the sales tax.
It is apparent from the sales tax that only tangible personal property and services which were resold or tangible personal property which was transmuted into another kind of tangible personal property upon which a sales tax could be collected were to be exempt from the imposition of a sales tax. The apparent purposes for making such purchases exempt is to avoid a kind of double taxation, or in the case of the exemption of goods which become a component part of other tangible goods manufactured for sale, profit or use, to encourage the production of more valuable tangible personal property upon which a sales or use tax could be imposed and collected. These...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
BJ-Titan Services v. State Tax Com'n, BJ-TITAN
...State Tax Comm'n, 561 P.2d 1064 (Utah 1977); Sine v. State Tax Comm'n, 15 Utah 2d 214, 390 P.2d 130 (1964); Barrett Inv. Co. v. State Tax Comm'n, 15 Utah 2d 97, 387 P.2d 998 (1964); Ralph Child Constr. Co. v. State Tax Comm'n, 12 Utah 2d 53, 362 P.2d 422 (1961); Olson Constr. Co. v. State T......
-
Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. v. State Tax Com'n
...under the sales tax law. See Tummurru Trades, Inc. v. State Tax Comm'n, 802 P.2d 715 (Utah 1990); Barrett Inv. Co. v. State Tax Comm'n, 15 Utah 2d 97, 387 P.2d 998 (1964); Ralph Child Constr. Co. v. State Tax Comm'n, 12 Utah 2d 53, 362 P.2d 422 (1961); Olson Constr. Co. v. State Tax Comm'n,......
-
Hardy v. State Tax Commission
...dissenting opinion. WILKIS, J., does not participate herein. 1 101 Utah 513, 517, 125 P.2d 408.2 109 Utah 563, 168 P.2d 324.3 15 Utah 2d 97, 387 P.2d 998.4 15 Utah 2d 214, 390 P.2d 130.5 110 Utah 135, 149, 170 P.2d 164.6 We so state and have decided in accordance with the above cited author......
-
Nucor Corp., Nucor Steel Utah Div. v. Utah State Tax Com'n, STEEL--UTAH
...549 P.2d 443, 445 (Utah 1976); Sine v. State Tax Comm'n, 15 Utah 2d 214, 390 P.2d 130, 131 (1964); Barrett Inv. Co. v. State Tax Comm'n, 15 Utah 2d 97, 387 P.2d 998, 999-1000 (1964); E.C. Olsen Co. v. State Tax Comm'n, 109 Utah 563, 168 P.2d 324, 329-30 (1946).11 See Union Portland, 170 P.2......