Bowman v. State Tax Commission

Decision Date13 January 1938
Docket Number3 Div. 224
Citation178 So. 216,235 Ala. 190
PartiesBOWMAN et al. v. STATE TAX COMMISSION.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Appeal from Circuit Court, Montgomery County; Walter B. Jones Judge.

Bill for declaratory judgment of nonliability as to the payment of a privilege or license tax by W.W. Bowman and another, doing business as W.W. Bowman & Son, against the State Tax Commission.

From a decree sustaining a demurrer to the bill, complainants appeal.

Affirmed.

L.A Sanderson, of Montgomery, for appellants.

A.A Carmichael, Atty. Gen., B.W. Simmons and Wm. H. Loeb, Asst. Attys. Gen., L.H. Ellis, of Columbiana, and H.L. Anderton, of Birmingham, for appellee.

GARDNER Justice.

Appellants are engaged in selling livestock, mules, horses, and cattle, both at wholesale and retail, "which said livestock are not raised or bred by them," to use the language of the bill.

They seek a declaratory judgment of nonliability to the payment of the privilege or license tax imposed under the provisions of the Sales Tax Revenue Act of February 1937, Acts 1936-37, Special Session, p. 125, and prosecute this appeal from an adverse ruling in the court below.

It is, of course, clear enough that the livestock they sell constitute tangible personal property, the sale of which comes squarely within section 2 of the act, page 126, imposing the tax. But it is insisted that their business is within the influence of subsection (c) of section 4 of the act, page 128, containing the following exception: "Amounts received from the sale or sales of livestock, poultry and other products of the farm, dairy, grove or garden, when said sale or sales are made by the producer or member of his immediate family, or employees forming a part of the producer's organization, in the original state of condition of preparation for sale."

The argument for exemption appears to be that under the above language amounts received from the sale of livestock and poultry are exempt absolutely, or that the modification set forth therein has reference only to eggs, milk, nuts, fruit, vegetables, and the like. And this argument is based upon the theory that the word "produce" indicates something grown or produced on the farm other than livestock; that, had the word "livestock" been intended to be so modified by the subsequent language, the word "raise" would have been appropriate.

The authorities cited merely tend to show that in some instances according to the context, the words "product" or "produce" have been interpreted as not including livestock, and in some instances the word "producer" as not differing materially from the word "manufacturer." 6 Words and Phrases, Third Series, p. 193; 6 Words and Phrases, First Series, p. 5655; Neuhoff Packing Co. v. Sharpe et al., 146 Tenn. 293, 240 S.W. 1101; 50 C.J. 631; Elder v. State, 162 Ala. 41, 50 So. 370. But as stated in 50 Corpus Juris 628, speaking of "produce" as a noun: "The word has no definite, exact, and particular meaning, but a variety...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • State v. Wertheimer Bag Co.
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 13 Octubre 1949
    ...exempting the gross proceeds of livestock, until it was amended to include livestock 'by whomsoever sold.' Bowman v. State Tax Commission, 235 Ala. 190, 178 So. 216. But subdivision (i) does not so provide, nor does it indicate any such intent. It makes no suggestion that the preparation fo......
  • Curry v. Woodstock Slag Corporation
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 22 Enero 1942
    ... ... Revenue for Alabama, and as chief executive officer of the ... State Department of Revenue, for a declaratory judgment as to ... whether the sales tax is applicable to ... Adler, 144 Ala ... 555, 42 So. 116, 113 Am.St.Rep. 58; State Docks ... Commission v. Barnes, 225 Ala. 403, 143 So. 581 ... This ... immunity does not extend to officers ... Curry, 238 Ala. 116, 189 So. 186; Long v. Roberts ... & Son, 234 Ala. 570, 176 So. 213; Bowman v. State Tax ... Commission, 235 Ala. 190, 178 So. 216; Holt v ... Long, 234 Ala. 369, 174 So ... ...
  • State v. Ross Grady Ins. Agency, Inc.
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • 13 Septiembre 1972
    ...established principle that one claiming an exemption has the burden of proving that he comes within the exemption. Bowman v. State Tax Commission, 235 Ala. 190, 178 So. 216; State v. Bankhead Min. Co., 279 Ala. 566, 188 So.2d 527; and Brundidge Milling Co. v. State, 45 Ala.App. 208, 228 So.......
  • Griffin v. Edwards
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 19 Noviembre 1953
    ...against the taxpayer and in favor of the taxing power. State v. Wertheimer Bag Co., 253 Ala. 124, 43 So.2d 824; Bowman v. State Tax Commission, 235 Ala. 190, 178 So. 216; State v. Tuscaloosa Cotton Seed Oil Co., 208 Ala. 610, 95 So. 52; Brown v. Protective Life Ins. Co., 188 Ala. 166, 66 So......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT