Conn. Light & Power Co. v. Walsh
Decision Date | 15 January 1948 |
Citation | 134 Conn. 295,57 A.2d 128 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | CONNECTICUT LIGHT & POWER CO. v. WALSH, Tax Commissioner. CONNECTICUT LIGHT & POWER CO. et al. v. SAME. M. J. DALY & SONS, Inc., v. SAME. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Case Reserved from Superior Court, Hartford County; O'Sullivan, Judge.
Actions by the Connecticut Light & Power Company and by the Connecticut Light & Power Company and another for declaratory judgment as to whether the use tax applies to the plaintiffs and by M. J. Daly & Sons, Inc., for declaratory judgment as to whether the sales tax applies to the plaintiff, against Walter W. Walsh, Tax Commissioner.The actions were brought to the superior court and reserved by the court for the advice of the Supreme Court of Errors.
Order in accordance with opinion.
Lawrence A. Howard and Atwood Collins, II, both of Hartford (Charles L. Smiddy, of New London, on the brief), for plaintiffsConnecticut Light & Power Co. and M. J. Daly & Sons, Inc.
Arthur L. Corbin, Jr. and John Lashnits, both of New Haven; (Charles L. Smiddy, of New London, on the brief), for plaintiffSouthern New England Telephone Co.
Jack Rubin, Asst. Atty. Gen. (William L. Hadden, Atty. Gen., on the brief), for defendant.
Before MALTBIE, C. J., and BROWN, JENNINGS, ELLS, and DICKENSON, JJ.
These cases present three questions arising under the statute adopted by the last General Assembly imposing a sales and use tax.Public Acts 1947, No. 228.In one, the Southern New England Telephone Company claims to be exempt from the imposition of the use tax; in another, the Connecticut Light and Power Company, a water, gas, electric and power company, claims a like exemption; and in the third, the M. J. Daly & Sons corporation, which sells tangible personal property to gas, water, electric, telephone and telegraph companies, claims that such sales are exempt from the sales tax.
The provisions of the act directly involved in the controversies before us are as follows:
The telephone and power companies claim that the terms of the act themselves evince an intent that the use tax shall not be imposed upon them as regards materials purchased and used or consumed by them in order to enable them to serve their customers; the telephone company also claims exemption by reason of a provision in § 1321 of the General Statutes that a tax upon gross earnings of telephone companies imposed by §§ 1316and1317‘shall be in lieu of all other taxation’ in this state upon each such company and upon its tangible and intangible personal property, with an added provision that its real estate shall be taxed where it is located.The power company claims a like exemption under a provision in § 1325 of the General Statutes that a tax upon gross earnings imposed by §§ 1322and1323 upon companies manufacturing, selling and distributing water, gas or electricity ‘shall be in lieu of all license, corporate excess or income taxes' payable to the state and of all taxes on moneys and credits owned by the companies.The Daly corporation claims that, upon similar grounds, it is not bound to pay the state any tax upon materials sold to the other plaintiffs and similar companies for use or consumption in furnishing service to their customers.
The use tax is doubtless complementary to the sales tax, but its purpose goes beyond protecting sellers within the state from the unfair competition which would result if the purchase of articles outside state bounds was not subject to taxation, and beyond affording a means of preventing the evasion of the sales tax by such purchases.It applies, for example, as regards articles bought outside the state although they are not purchasable within it.By the use tax, a broader basis of taxation is established by the inclusion of purchases made without as well as within the state.Dain Mfg. Co. v. Iowa State Tax Commission, 237 Iowa 531, 534, 22 N.W.2d 786.The two taxes, though imposed by the same act, are distinct.McLeod v. Dillworth Co., 322 U.S. 327, 330, 64 S.Ct. 1023, 1025, 88 L.Ed. 1304.Whether or not the two shall have precisely the same scope is for the determination of the legislature.In the act before us, it is unquestionably so that, in the main, articles subject to the use tax would, if bought in this state, be subject, instead, to the sales tax; but as to any particular type of article it may be necessary, as it is in these cases, to search the act to discover whether there is any particular intent as to it.
The terms of the act imposing the use tax are broad enough to include articles stored, used or consumed by the telephone and power companies on the same basis as those stored, used or consumed by others.The only provision of the act which singles out such companies for special treatment is § 7(c), which we have quoted.While the introductory clause of that section refers to exemptions from both the sales tax and the use tax, all of the seventeen subsections deal specifically with exemptions from the former except two, which expressly state exemptions from both the sales tax and use tax as regards returnable containers and motor vehicle fuel.Subsection (c), instead of supporting the companies' claim to exemption from the use tax, pretty thoroughly disproves it.The exemption is of ‘the sales, furnishing, or service of, gas, water, electricity, telephone and telegraph,’ and it is, therefore, an exemption only from the sales tax.It does not, however, exempt such companies generally from that tax but only as regards service delivered to customers ‘through mains, lines or pipes.’The careful delineation of the bounds of this exemption gives unusual force to the principle that the express mention in a statute of one exemption precludes reading others into it.Hoard v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 122 Conn. 185, 193, 188 A. 269.The provision unmistakably shows a legislative intent that, as to sales other than those specified, public utility companies should be subject to the sales tax, and shows that there was no intent to exempt them generally from that tax.Still less is there any basis in this provision for a claim of exemption of such companies from the use tax.Had the General Assembly intended such a result, it could easily have broadened the provision to exempt public utility companies from the imposition of the use...
To continue reading
Request your trialUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
United States v. Sullivan
...sales tax and use tax are distinct provisions, in terms and in concept for some purposes (see Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Walsh, 134 Conn. 295, 300, 57 A.2d 128, 1 A.L.R. 2d 453 (1948)), in practical effect they are complementary and designed to promote equality of taxation on personal......
-
Anderson v. Ludgin
...and give effect to it . . . we are confined to the intention which is expressed in the words it has used." Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Walsh, 134 Conn. 295, 301, 57 A.2d 128.' " Kulis v. Moll, 172 Conn. 104, 110, 374 A.2d 133, 136 (1976); Madison Education Assn. v. Madison, 174 Conn. 1......
-
Johnson v. Manson
...and give effect to it, but we are confined to the intention which is expressed in the words it has used.' Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Walsh, 134 Conn. 295, 301, 57 A.2d 128 [1948]. " 'It is a cardinal rule of construction that statutes are to be construed so that they carry out the int......
-
State v. Kish
...and give effect to it, but we are confined to the intention which is expressed in the words it has used." Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Walsh, 134 Conn. 295, 301, 57 A.2d 128 (1948). The use of specific words to define acts for which penetration is required connotes the legislative inten......