Claiborne Sales Co. v. Collector of Revenue

Decision Date12 November 1957
Docket NumberNo. 42981,42981
Citation233 La. 1061,99 So.2d 345
PartiesCLAIBORNE SALES COMPANY, Inc. v. COLLECTOR OF REVENUE. Rufus W. FONTENOT, Collector of Revenue, State of Louisiana, v. CLAIBORNE SALES COMPANY, Inc.
CourtLouisiana Supreme Court

Hollingsworth B. Barret, Shreveport, for petitioner-appellant.

George C. Gibson, New Orleans, Robert L. Roland, Levi A. Himes, Chapman L. Sanford, Baton Rouge, for appellee.

PONDER, Justice.

In these consolidated suits, the Claiborne Sales Company, Incorporated, is contesting an assessment made by the Collector of Revenue for sales tax during the period beginning January 1, 1951 through August 31, 1953, in the amount of $9,469.03, penalties, and interest.

The only question in dispute is whether or not the tax is due and whether or not penalties should be assessed under the facts in this case.

The Claiborne Sales Company, Incorporated, is engaged in the business of selling ceramic tile and tile accessories to tile contractors exclusively. This corporation, hereinafter referred to as Claiborne, petitioned the Board of Tax Appeals for a re-determination of the assessment contending that it is a wholesale dealer within the meaning of LSA-R.S. 47:301 et seq., the Sales Tax Law. Claiborne also filed a plea of estoppel alleging that it had twice made application for a sales tax registration certificate to a deputy collector and that the certificate was not issued because the agents of the Collector represented that Claiborne was not subject to the sales tax law. Claiborne also contends that to exact a penalty for the failure to pay the tax, after it had followed the instructions of the agent of the Collector, would constitute unjust enrichment.

The Collector of Revenue took the position that Claiborne is a retail dealer because such transactions must be considered as sales at retail within the meaning of LSA-R.S. 47:302, and specifically under Section 301(10) which defines retail sale as a sale to a consumer or to any person other than for resale.

A hearing was had before the Board of Tax Appeals and this board came to the conclusion that Claiborne was a wholesaler but that since Claiborne did not comply with the regulations (Article 2--38 of the Rules and Regulations of the Collector of Revenue), by having resale certificates, that, therefore, it was liable for the tax because of non-compliance with Section 301(10). The litigants appealed from this ruling of the Board to the district court. Upon hearing, the district court reversed the ruling of the Board of Tax Appeals and gave judgment in favor of the Collector of Revenue for the amount of the assessment, penalties and interest. Claiborne has appealed.

The issue presented is whether or not the sales made by Claiborne to tile contractors are to be considered wholesale transactions or retail sales. It is admitted in an agreed stipulation of facts that Claiborne is engaged in the business of selling tile and accessories to tile contractors exclusively to be used by these contractors in performing and fulfilling installation contracts made directly with real estate owners or with general building contractors. The sales were made in wholesale quantities, sufficient to complete a job or for the tile contractors to keep in stock for future jobs.

LSA-R.S. 47:302 provides: 'There is hereby levied a tax upon the sale at retail, the use, the consumption, the distribution, and the storage for use or consumption in this state, of each item or article of tangible personal property, as defined herein, * * *.' The term retail sale is defined in Section 301(10) as 'a sale to a consumer or to any person for any purpose other than for resale in the form of tangible personal property * * *.'

As aptly stated by the trial judge in his written opinion:

'The crucial inquiry becomes, 'What is a sale at retail?' The Act defines it. Whatever the popular conception of 'sale at retail' may be, the courts, in interpreting the Act, are bound by the definition contained in the Act itself. (LSA-) R.S. 47:301(10) reads, in pertinent part: "Retail sale' or 'sale at retail' means a sale to a consumer or to any person for any purpose other than a resale in the form of tangible personal property * * *."

The question of whether or not sales to contractors and sub-contractors are retail sales was specifically passed on in the case of State v. J. Watts Kearny & Sons, 181 La. 554, 160 So. 77. In that case the Collector of Revenue sought to collect a retail license tax from the defendants, who were engaged in the business of selling building materials at wholesale. It was contended therein that such sales were not retail sales under the provisions of that act (Occupational License Act, LSA-R.S. 47:341 et seq.). That act defined a wholesaler as one who sells to dealers for resale. It was contended therein that the contractors and sub-contractors resold the building materials to the owners of the building constructed or repaired. This Court held in that case that the sales made by the defendants were retail sales for the reasons that the contractors were not dealers and in executing their building contracts did not sell the building materials to the owners but used them in the performance of their contract whereby they delivered to the owners of real estate a completed work, edifice, or structure.

It was pointed out in the Kearny case (181 La. 554, 160 So. 78.):

'A contractor who buys building materials is not one who buys and sells--a trader. He is not a 'dealer,' or one who habitually and constantly, as a business, deals in and sells any given commodity. He does not sell lime and cement and nails and lumber. His undertaking is to deliver to his obligee some work or edifice or structure, the construction of which requires the application of skill and labor to these materials so that, when he...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • Airwork Service Div., a Div. of Pacific Airmotive Corp. v. Director, Div. of Taxation
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • July 23, 1984
    ...collecting taxes. See, e.g., State v. Maddox Tractor & Equip. Co., 260 Ala. 136, 69 So.2d 426 (1953); Claiborne Sales Co., Inc. v. Collector of Revenue, 233 La. 1061, 99 So.2d 345 (1957); Henderson v. Gill, 229 N.C. 313, 49 S.E.2d 754 (1948) (in collection of sales tax, error of an administ......
  • Salisbury Beauty Schools v. State Bd. of Cosmetologists
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • February 7, 1973
    ...N.C. 313, 49 S.E.2d 754), Michigan Sportservice Inc. v. Nims (, 319 Mich. 561), 30 N.W.2d 281 (Mich.); Claiborne Sales Co. v. Collector of Revenue (, 233 La. 1061), 99 So.2d 345 (La.); Comm. v. Western Md. R. R. Co., supra (, 377 Pa. 312, 105 A.2d 336), 31 C.J.S. Estoppel § 138; 19 Am.Jur.,......
  • Iowa Movers and Warehousemen's Ass'n v. Briggs, 2--57422
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • January 21, 1976
    ...& Equipment Co., 260 Ala. 136, 69 So.2d 426; Bennetts, Inc. v. Carpenter, 111 Colo. 63, 137 P.2d 780; Claiborne Sales Co., Inc. v. Collector of Revenue, 233 La. 1061, 99 So.2d 345; Henderson v. Gill, 229 N.C. 313, 49 S.E.2d In the S & M Finance Co. case, this court noted the existence of ca......
  • Reliance Mfg. Co. v. Barr
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • November 5, 1962
    ...v. State, 215 Ga. 771, 113 S.E.2d 390; Bennetts, Inc. v. Carpenter, 111 Colo. 63, 137 P.2d 780 (1932); Claiborne Sales Co., Inc. v. Collector of Revenue, 233 La. 1061, 99 So.2d 345 (1958); La Societe Francaise De Bienfaisance Mutuellee v. California Employment Commission, 56 Cal.App.2d 534,......
  • 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