Dent-Craft Laboratories of Conn., Inc. v. Sullivan

• Decision Date: 24 January 1961
• Docket Number: DENT-CRAFT
• Citation: 167 A.2d 714,148 Conn. 94
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: LABORATORIES OF CONNECTICUT, INC. v. John L. SULLIVAN, Tax Commissioner. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut

Page 714

167 A.2d 714

148 Conn. 94

DENT-CRAFT LABORATORIES OF CONNECTICUT, INC. v. John L. SULLIVAN, Tax Commissioner.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Jan. 24, 1961.

Howard R. Matzkin, Waterbury, with whom was Alvin Rosenbaum, Waterbury, for plaintiff.

Walter T. Faulkner, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom were F. Michael Ahern, Asst. Atty. Gen., and, on the brief, Albert L. Coles, Atty. Gen., for defendant.

Before BALDWIN, C. J., and KING, MURPHY, MELLITZ and SHEA, JJ.

MURPHY, Associate Justice.

The plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court from the assessment of a sales tax upon the gross receipts of its sales of dentures to dentists. Upon a stipulation of facts, the question has been reserved for the advice of this court. ¹

What is now subsection (s) of § 12-412 of the General Statutes was enacted in 1955 as Public Act No. 164. ² By its terms, it exempts from the sales tax articles specifically mentioned and in addition thereto 'other equipment worn as a correction or substitute for any functioning portion of the body.' In the interpretation of the statute, the defendant promulgated a departmental regulation on July 26, 1955. Conn.Dept.Regs. § 104-26. In subsection (5), he includes, as tax exempt, sales of artificial ears and artificial noses, but specifically includes as taxable sales by dental laboratories of artificial plates, teeth or other dentures.

Dentures are artificial teeth. As prostheses, they are substitutes or replacements for missing parts of the body. They perform the function of masticating food in the absence of natural teeth. That they are correctives or substitutes for a functioning part of the body is without question, and the receipts from their sale are tax exempt under the quoted portion of § 12-412(s) unless it is elsewhere otherwise expressly provided.

The stipulation recites that the dentures are constructed by the plaintiff upon orders from licensed dentists and conform to impressions or casts which have been made and furnished by them. The completed dentures are delivered to the dentist, who adjust them to fit the mouth of the patient. There is no direct dealing between the plaintiff and the person for whom the teeth are ordered, and cannot be, since General Statutes, § 20-123 prohibits it and requires that the construction of dentures be done under the direction of a licensed dentist. The defendant claims that since the sale of the completed dentures by the plaintiff is to the dentist and not to the patient, the exemption does not apply.

We cannot follow the defendant's reasoning. He contends that the plaintiff is seeking to include an exemption in the law where its terms do not permit an exemption. See Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Walsh, 134 Conn. 295, 311, 57 A.2d 128, 1 A.L.R.2d 453. On the contrary, the defendant is seeking to exclude an exemption which is already included by the broad terms of the statute. There is no justifiable distinction, in the application of the statute, between the sale of artificial ears and noses, which the defendant treats as being tax free, and the sale of artificial teeth, which he holds to be taxable. All these devices or aids are 'equipment' within the terms of the...