Botkins Grain & Feed Co. v. Lindley, 81-1725
| Citation | 1 Ohio St.3d 64,437 N.E.2d 1182 |
| Decision Date | 21 July 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-1725,81-1725 |
| Parties | , 1 O.B.R. 105 BOTKINS GRAIN & FEED COMPANY, Appellee, v. LINDLEY, Tax Commr., Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. A seller is not a construction contractor subject to use taxes under R.C. 5741.02(A), with respect to portable livestock capsules constructed offsite and delivered on site by a manufacturer, where the principal activity of the seller is assisting in the placement of the capsule on real property and the connection of utility lines.
2. Livestock capsules are not "incorporated into a structure or improvement" within the meaning of R.C. 5739.01(B) where they are merely present on real property and are not physically affixed to the relevant structure or improvement.
Botkins Grain & Feed Company, appellee, is an Ohio corporation engaged in numerous agriculturally-related enterprises, including the sale of equipment and other merchandise for the feeding and housing of livestock. Among the items sold by appellee are certain house-like structures, designated as capsules, for use in calf raising and swine farrowing.
The basic structure consists of a base, four walls, a gable roof and an access door. On the average, the capsules stand approximately seven feet high at the roof line, eight feet at the peak. The capsules are available in widths of 12 feet or 24 feet, referred to as "single-wides" and "double-wides" respectively, and vary in length from 22 feet to 54 feet. The weight of the capsules ranges from 7,500 to 34,000 pounds. 1
A farmer desiring to purchase a capsule begins the process by completing a purchase order form supplied by appellee and presenting 10 percent of the purchase price to appellee as a down-payment. Appellee, who purchases the capsules from a manufacturer in Indiana, 2 then fills out an order form supplied by that manufacturer and forwards the order along with 10 percent of its cost to the manufacturer.
Upon confirmation the manufacturer constructs the capsule in its entirety according to the designated specifications. When a "double-wide" has been ordered the capsule is constructed in two sections for purposes of transportation to the appropriate site.
While construction is underway, the farmer, at his own expense, prepares the site by causing a concrete pad to be poured and having the necessary utility lines run to the appropriate locations. Appellee's employees check on completion of such responsibilities prior to confirming a definite delivery date.
Thereafter, the manufacturer delivers the capsule on the flat bed of a tractor-trailer truck directly to the farmer's property. One or two of appellee's employees are present at the site to assist in causing the capsule to become operational.
This process is initiated by positioning the trailer, on which the capsule is sitting, over the concrete pad. Next, appellee's employees raise the capsule off the trailer, which is driven away. The capsule then is lowered to the pad. Finally, appellee's employees connect the necessary utilities, except gas, and make any necessary repairs to insure that the capsule is operational at that time.
Regarding "double-wides," after lowering the two sections to the pad appellee's employees push the sections together, bolt the roof and apply a liquid sealer to the area where the sections join. 3
The capsules are not attached to the pad in any manner. In fact, a significant aspect of the marketability of these structures is their portability. They may be moved with a minimum of effort and no damage to the capsule or the pad. 4
Appellee purchased from the manufacturer and sold to Ohio farmers a considerable number of capsules since the initiation, prior to January, 1975, of its marketing efforts regarding these structures.
Pursuant to an audit covering the period from January 1, 1975 through December 31, 1977 the Tax Commissioner of Ohio, appellant, assessed against appellee a sales tax of $203.26, a use tax of $37,304.55 and 15 percent penalty on each of these sums, resulting in a total assessment of $43,133.98. All but $162.10 of the use tax was attributable to the purchase and resale of the livestock capsules.
Appellee filed a petition for reassessment in September 1978, specifically objecting to the use tax on the purchases of the capsules and requesting a remission of all penalties.
However, upon reconsideration, while reducing the penalties from 15 to 5 percent, appellant left the use tax unchanged.
In October 1979, appellee filed a notice of appeal to the Board of Tax Appeals reiterating the objection to the use tax on the livestock capsules. Appellee also argued that appellant abused his discretion in failing to remit the penalties entirely.
The board found the imposition of a use tax inappropriate in this matter and reversed appellant's determination.
The cause is now before this court upon appeal as of right.
Garmhausen, Kerrigan, Elsass & Co., L. P. A., Eugene P. Elsass, James R. Shenk and Ralph F. Keister, Sidney, for appellee.
William J. Brown, Atty. Gen., and Charles M. Steines, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.
The sole issue in this cause is whether appellee is a construction contractor with respect to the sales of livestock capsules.
R.C. 5741.02(A) imposes an excise tax "on the storage, use or other consumption in this state of tangible personal property." However, pursuant to R.C. 5741.02(C)(2), this tax is not applicable to property, the acquisition of which, if made in this state, would not be subject to the tax levied upon retail sales under R.C. Chapter 5739.
Generally, as provided by R.C. 5739.01(E), those sales in which the consumer's purpose is to "resell the thing transferred in the form in which the same is, or is to be, received by him" are excluded from the definition of "retail sale." 5
However, R.C. 5739.01(B) establishes in pertinent part that:
" * * * a construction contract pursuant to which tangible personal property is or is to be incorporated into a structure or improvement on and becoming a part of real property is not a sale of such tangible personal property, and the construction contractor is the consumer thereof." 6
As applied to the present cause, clearly, the concrete pad constituted "a structure or improvement on and becoming part of real property." Thus, we must consider whether the contracts between appellee and the farmers were construction contracts pursuant to which the livestock capsules were incorporated into the concrete pad.
Appellant insists that this cause is controlled by R.C. 5701.02, which provides:
"As used in Title LVII of the Revised Code, 'real property' and 'land' include land itself, * * * all growing crops * * *, and unless otherwise specified, all buildings, structures, improvements, and fixtures of whatever kind on the land, and all rights and privileges belonging or appertaining thereto." (Emphasis added.)
G.C. 5322, the predecessor of R.C. 5701.02, was considered by this court in Reed v. Bd. of Revision (1949), 152 Ohio St. 207 , 88 N.E.2d 701. Therein, the owners of certain cottages erected on land leased from the state contended that the cottages wrongfully had been classified as real property by a county auditor. However, this court determined:
"Even if a structure or building located on land is personal property, such structure or building will, for purposes of taxation, be included within the definition of 'real property' as that term is defined in Section 5322, General Code, unless the General Assembly has otherwise specified." Reed, supra, at paragraph three of the syllabus.
Further, in Shutter Bug, Inc. v. Kosydar (1974), 40 Ohio St.2d 99 , 329 N.E.2d 239, the Tax Commissioner contested a finding by the Board of Tax Appeals that small buildings located on shopping center or bowling alley parking lots from which the owners conducted the business of selling and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Salpietro v. Salpietro
-
Am. Natl. Can Co. v. Tracy
...'incorporated' as used in the construction contract provision found in R.C. 5739.01(B)." Botkins Grain & Feed Co. v. Lindley (1982), 1 Ohio St.3d 64, 68, 1 OBR 105, 108, 437 N.E.2d 1182, 1185-1186. The record shows that this transformer, a large piece of equipment, was neither bolted nor ot......
- State, ex rel. Hughes v. Industrial Com'n of Ohio
-
Jennings & Churella Const. Co. v. Lindley, 82-1481
...with this interpretation. Recently we had occasion to interpret another clause in R.C. 5739.01(B). In Botkins Grain & Feed Co. v. Lindley (1982), 1 Ohio St.3d 64, 437 N.E.2d 1182, the clause " * * * incorporated into a structure or improvement * * * " was held to require an actual physical ......