Frank Amodio Moving & Storage Co. v. Connelly
| Decision Date | 29 October 1957 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | FRANK AMODIO MOVING and STORAGE COMPANY, Inc. v. William F. CONNELLY, Tax Commissioner, et al. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
Anthony J. Monterosso, New Britain, for appellant (plaintiff).
F. Michael Ahern, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom, on the brief, were John J. Bracken, Atty. Gen., and Walter T. Faulkner, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellees (defendants).
Before WYNNE, C. J., and BALDWIN, DALY, KING, and MURPHY, JJ.
Frank Amodio, as an individual, had for some years owned and operated a moving and storage business in New Britain. Among the assets of his business were fourteen motor trucks and three passenger cars. In December, 1951, Amodio decided to incorporate the business and the plaintiff corporation was duly formed. In the early part of January, 1952, the seventeen motor vehicles were transferred to the corporation and recorded on its books as corporate assets. About a month later Amodio, as an officer of the corporation, applied for a change of registration of the motor vehicles so that their registration would conform to their corporate ownership. This transfer was refused until the corporation paid a use tax of $1066.56. The tax was paid under protest, the transfer of registration was made, and, after proper preliminary proceedings, this appeal was taken to recover the amount paid as a tax. The sole claim of the plaintiff is that the transfer of the ownership of the vehicles was not subject to any tax.
The decision of the appeal turns on the language of § 460b of the 1951 Cumulative Supplement (now, in a very different form, No. 459 of the Public Acts of 1957), the material provisions of which are printed in the footnote. 1 There is no claim that Amodio was a licensed motor vehicle dealer. Consequently, the transfer of the vehicles was not subject to a sales tax. The plaintiff claims it was not subject to a use tax for two basic reasons.
The plaintiff's first reason is that there is nothing to indicate that Amodio made a sale, as distinguished from a gift, to the corporation. This claim requires no extended discussion. The motor vehicles were part of the assets transferred to the corporation by Amodio and in return for which it issued its stock, principally to him, in accordance with the provisions of what is now § 2574d(3) of the 1955 Cumulative Supplement and of § 5169 of the General Statutes. From the transfer of ownership from Amodio to the corporation an implied contract to pay for the motor vehicles, in stock or otherwise, would arise. Collins v. Lewis, 111 Conn. 299, 304, 149 A. 668. The stipulation of facts contains nothing about a gift, nor any other fact negating the implied contract of purchase. The plaintiff's second reason is that the purchaser was 'the spouse, mother, father, b...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Harris
...separate and apart from its stockholders. Humphrey v. Abgraves, 145 Conn. 350, 354, 143 A.2d 432; Frank Amodio Moving & Storage Co. v. Connelly, 144 Conn. 569, 572, 135 A.2d 737; Kulukundis v. Dean Stares Holding Co., 132 Conn. 685, 689, 47 A.2d 183; Swiss Cleaners, Inc. v. Danaher, 129 Con......
-
Hartford Hospital v. Board of Tax Review of City of Hartford
...party claiming an exemption. Sullivan v. Union & New Haven Trust Co., 147 Conn. 178, 181, 158 A.2d 174; Frank Amodio Moving & Storage Co. v. Connelly, 144 Conn. 569, 572, 135 A.2d 737; Hoenig v. Connelly, 141 Conn. 266, 272, 105 A.2d 775. When the plaintiff failed to file a report claiming ......
-
Cal-Metal Corp. v. State Bd. of Equalization
...a "sale". An excise tax computed at 1 per cent of the value of the property was properly imposed.]; Frank Amodio Moving and Storage Co. v. Connelly (1957) 144 Conn. 569, 135 A.2d 737, 738 [Transfer of motor vehicles by an individual to a newly formed corporation in return for stock constitu......
-
Commissioner of Revenue v. SCA Disposal Services of New England, Inc.
...would be a most difficult task. There is no implied contract of sale in a statutory merger. See Frank Amodio Moving & Storage Co. v. Connelly, 144 Conn. 569, 571-572, 135 A.2d 737 (1957). In any event, the tax benefit received by a parent through a tax-free reorganization, lawfully adopted ......