Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Clayton
Decision Date | 09 April 1969 |
Docket Number | No. 10,10 |
Citation | 275 N.C. 215,166 S.E.2d 671 |
Parties | COLONIAL PIPELINE COMPANY, v. I. L. CLAYTON, Commissioner of Revenue of the State of North Carolina. |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Robert Morgan, Atty. Gen., and Myron C. Banks, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant appellee.
The determinative questions involved in this action are primarily questions of law and may be stated as follows:
1. Are transportation charges paid by a purchaser for transporting tangible personal property from the point of purchase outside North Carolina to a point of use within this State properly includable in the North Carolina use tax base when the purchaser takes title to the purchased property at the point of origin outside the State, causes said property to be transported into the State and stores, uses or consumes said property so as to become liable for North Carolina use tax?
2. Are cash discounts properly includable in the North Carolina use tax base when the seller bills the purchaser for the full amount of the sales price but allows a cash discount when goods are paid for within a specified period of time, and the purchaser takes the discount by paying for the goods within the time specified and uses, stores, or consumes the property in this State so as to become liable for the North Carolina use tax?
3. Is any portion of defendant's counterclaim barred by any applicable statute of limitations?
The statute which imposes a sales and use tax on transportation charges reads as follows: (Emphasis ours.) G.S. § 105--164.12.
The commerce clause of the Federal Constitution provides that '(t)he Congress shall have Power * * * (t)o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.' U.S.Const. art. I, § 8. A sales tax on interstate transactions violates the commerce clause and is therefore void and uncollectible. Western Live Stock v. Bureau of Revenue, 303 U.S. 250, 58 S.Ct. 546, 82 L.Ed. 823, 115 A.L.R. 944; McLeod v. J. E. Dilworth Co., 322 U.S. 327, 64 S.Ct. 1023, 88 L.Ed. 1304. Johnston v. Gill, Comr. of Revenue, 224 N.C. 638, 643, 32 S.E.2d 30, 33.
A use tax McGoldrick v. Berwind-White Coal Mining Co., 309 U.S. 33, 49, 60 S.Ct. 388, 393, 84 L.Ed. 565.
In Henneford v. Silas Mason Co., 300 U.S. 577, 57 S.Ct. 524, 81 L.Ed. 814, a Washington statute subjected every retail sale of tangible personal property made in that state to a 2% Sales tax. It also imposed a compensating tax on the privilege of using within the state any article of tangible personal property purchased at retail, at the rate of 2% Of the purchase price, Including in such price the cost of transportation from the place where the article was purchased. But the use tax did not apply to the use of any article which had already been subjected by the laws of Washington or any other state to a sales or use tax equal to or in excess of 2%. If the article had already been taxed at less than 2%, the Washington use tax rate was measured by the difference. This statute was attacked on the ground that it taxed the operations of interstate commerce and discriminated against such commerce unlawfully. Held: Accord, Nelson v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 312 U.S. 359, 61 S.Ct. 586, 85 L.Ed. 888, 132 A.L.R. 475. See also Annot.: 129 A.L.R. 222. Thus, the constitutionality of a use tax has long been determined.
Here, however, plaintiff complains that transportation charges Are not included in the sales tax base when a sales tax is imposed on in-state sales with title passing at point of origin, while transportation charges Are included in the use tax base when a use tax is imposed on the use, storage or consumption in this state of property purchased out of state with title passing at point of origin. Plaintiff contends this results in an unconstitutional discrimination against interstate commerce. We now examine the validity of this contention.
Loss of business by local merchants because residents in the taxing state went outside to make tax-free purchases caused many states, including North Carolina, to resort to the use tax. 47 Am.Jur., Sales and Use Taxes, § 42. The legislative history of our sales and use tax discloses that when our sales tax was imposed in 1933, it tended to encourage residents to make out-of-state purchases to escape payment of the tax. As a result, the legislature enacted the use tax in 1937 intending by it to impose the same burdens on out-of-state purchases as the sales tax imposes on purchases within the state. Robinson & Hale, Inc. v. Shaw, Comr. of Revenue, 242 N.C. 486, 87 S.E.2d 909; Johnston v. Gill, supra.
A sales tax is assessed on the purchase price of property and is imposed at the time of sale. A use tax is assessed on the storage, use or consumption of property And takes effect only after such use begins. Atwater-Waynick, Hosiery Mills, Inc. v. Clayton, Com'r of Revenue, 268 N.C. 673, 151 S.E.2d 574. Regardless of the time and place of passing title, the taxable event for assessment of the use tax occurs when possession of the property is transferred to the purchaser within the taxing state for storage, use or consumption. McGoldrick v. Berwind- White Coal Mining Co., supra. The property has then come to rest, forms a part of the common mass of property within the taxing state, and the taxable moment is at hand. Watson Industries v. Shaw, Com'r of Revenue, 235 N.C. 203, 69 S.E.2d 505; Southern Pacific Co. v. Gallagher, 306 U.S. 167, 59 S.Ct. 389, 83 L.Ed. 586. Thus, the taxable event for assessment of the use tax occurs after purchase and after transportation of the property into the taxing state for storage, use or consumption. Hence, the state is at liberty, if it pleases, to include transportation charges in the use tax base and has done so by enactment of G.S. § 105--164.12. Such inclusion was approved in principle in Henneford v. Silas Mason Co., supra.
On the other hand, the taxable event for assessment of the sales tax occurs at the time of sale and purchase within the state. G.S. § 105--164.4(1). No transportation charges have been incurred by the Purchaser at that moment. The retail price upon which the sales tax is paid by the purchaser necessarily takes into account the transportation charges that have been paid on the goods to bring them to the retail outlet in North Carolina where the sale takes place. Gee Coal Co. v. Dept. of Finance, 361 Ill. 293, 197 N.E. 871, 102 A.L.R. 766; State v. Menefee Motor Co., 18 La.App. 694, 139 So. 61; Annot.: 102 A.L.R. 768. Thus, the net effect of including interstate transportation charges in the use tax base and excluding intrastate transportation charges in the sales tax base is to equalize the burden of the tax on property sold locally and property purchased out of state. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Appeal of Martin
...rule of construction that the intent of the Legislature controls. 73 Am.Jur.2d, Statutes, § 145 (1974); Pipeline Co. v. Clayton, Comr. of Revenue, 275 N.C. 215, 166 S.E.2d 671 (1969); Underwood v. Howland, comr. of Motor Vehicles, 274 N.C. 473, 164 S.E.2d 2 (1968); In re Watson, 273 N.C. 62......
-
Public Utility Dist. No. 2 of Grant County v. State
...scheme of the state. See Robert Emmet & Son Oil & Supply Co. v. Sullivan, 158 Conn. 234, 259 A.2d 636 (1969); Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Clayton, 275 N.C. 215, 166 S.E.2d 671 (1969); Philco Corp. v. Department of Revenue, 40 Ill.2d 312, 239 N.E.2d 805 (1968); Larey v. Continental S. Lines, In......
-
Sam v. Balardo
...to omit." (Emphasis supplied.) In re Hurd-Marvin Drain, 331 Mich. 504, 509, 50 N.W.2d 143 (1951).30 In Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Clayton, 275 N.C. 215, 227, 166 S.E.2d 671, 679-680 (1969), the court said the following with respect to an amended statute that added two words:"The fact that the......
-
Rowan County Bd. of Educ. v. U.S. Gypsum Co.
...includes the State. See the following: State v. West, 293 N.C. 18, 25, 235 S.E.2d 150, 154 (1977); Pipeline Co. v. Clayton, Comr. of Revenue, 275 N.C. 215, 229, 166 S.E.2d 671, 680-81 (1969); Miller v. McConnell, 226 N.C. 28, 34, 36 S.E.2d 722, 726 (1946); Raleigh v. Bank, 223 N.C. 286, 293......