Gulf Refining Co. v. Graham
Citation | 300 S.W. 564 |
Parties | GULF REFINING CO. v. GRAHAM, Comptroller, et al. |
Decision Date | 17 December 1927 |
Court | Supreme Court of Tennessee |
Suit by the Gulf Refining Company against Edgar J. Graham, Comptroller, and others. Decree for complainant, and defendant named appeals. Affirmed.
Horace Osment, Atty. Gen., for appellant.
Chas. C. Trabue, of Nashville, for appellee.
This suit was brought to recover privilege taxes alleged to have been wrongfully collected under the following provision of the Revenue Act of 1927, being chapter 89:
"Provided, that only one-half of the above tax shall be collected where the pump or pumps are run in connection with a store where the ad valorem tax paid on the stock is on an assessed value of not less than $800.00, and the store is located at least three miles from the limits of an incorporated town." Section 4.
Complainant was required to pay this tax, not only on the pumps or tanks operated in the delivery of petroleum products sold as a fuel for motor driven vehicles, but also on those pumps or tanks used to deliver lubricating oils incidentally required in the operation of these machines. The chancellor held that the tax should be limited to the pumps or tanks used for the delivery of the petroleum products sold as a fuel, and granted a decree in favor of complainant from which the state comptroller has appealed.
While the provision of the act quoted is not as clear as it might be made, we concur with the chancellor. The limiting words, "as a fuel for the same," can be given effect only by adopting this construction, and it is the duty of the court to look to the pertinent statute as a whole and give all parts of it...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McGill & Daugherty v. Kefauver
... ... v. Hays, 125 Tenn. 148, 140 S.W. 1068; Memphis v. Bing, 94 Tenn. 644, 30 S.W. 745; Gulf Refining Co. v. Graham, 156 Tenn. 265, 300 S.W. 564 ... The contention is made by ... ...
-
Burns v. Johnson
...be resolved in favor of the tax payer. Chattanooga Plow Company v. Hays, 125 Tenn. 148, 155, 140 S.W. 1068; Gulf Refining Company v. Graham, 156 Tenn. 265, 267, 300 S.W. 564. For the reason stated, the decree of the chancellor is ...
-
Zager v. Cobb
...are not extended by inference, and that all doubts in construction must be resolved in favor of the tax payer.' Gulf Refining Co. v. Graham, 156 Tenn. 265, 267, 300 S.W. 564, 565. We next consider the 1947 amendment to the Act, Advertisement as a Delicatessen Shop. Under the admitted facts,......
-
Gulf Refining Co. v. Graham
...300 S.W. 564 156 Tenn. 265 GULF REFINING CO. v. GRAHAM, COMPTROLLER, ET AL. Supreme Court of Tennessee.December 17, Appeal from Chancery Court, Davidson County; John R. Aust, Chancellor. Suit by the Gulf Refining Company against Edgar J. Graham, Comptroller, and others. Decree for complaina......