Herman M. Brown Co. v. Johnson, 49067
Decision Date | 03 April 1957 |
Docket Number | No. 49067,49067 |
Citation | 248 Iowa 1143,82 N.W.2d 134 |
Parties | HERMAN M. BROWN COMPANY, Appellee, v. Ray E. JOHNSON, Martin Lauterbach and Frank Hamilton, constituting the Iowa State Tax Commission, Appellants. |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Dayton Countryman, Atty.Gen., M. A. Inverson, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., J. M. Barrett, Sp. Counsel for State Tax Commission, Des Moines, for appellants.
Abramson & Myers, by A. J. Myers, Des. Moines, for appellee.
This action involves the Iowa Use Tax statute, Chapter 423 of the 1954 Code of Iowa, I.C.A. There is no substantial dispute over the facts. The parties have stipulated many of them. The testimonial evidence is not extensive but the exhibits which have been certified to this Court are voluminous.
Section 423.1(1), supra, provides: "Use' means and includes the exercise by any person of any right or power over tangible personal property incident to the ownership of that property, except that it shall not include processing, or the sale of that property in the regular course of business. * * *' (Italics ours.)
Section 423.2. (Italics ours.)
Section 423.4. 'Exemptions. The use in this state of the following tangible personal property is hereby specifically exempted from the tax imposed by this chapter:
* * *'
Division IV of chapter 422 mentioned just above is the statutory provision requiring the payment of the sales tax of two percent.
Appellee is an Iowa corporation with its home office at Des Moines, Iowa. For ten or more years prior to July 1, 1953 it was engaged in Iowa in selling heavy roadbuilding machinery and equipment. Its business was in buying new merchandise at wholesale prices and selling it at retail prices to its customers in Iowa. In effecting these sales to its customers, the appellee, in by far the greater number of transactions, used a printed lease agreement, which was preferable to its purchasers, wherein the rental specified was payable by the day, week, month, or longer periods. In the agreement was the provision: 'Lessee to pay state sales tax as required by law,' and also another provision, that, The lessee agreed to maintain the machinery and equipment in the same condition as when delivered, usual wear and tear excepted, and to pay all claims for damages to the equipment, and to persons injured in its use. Some of the leases were oral, but subject to the foregoing conditions and provisions. Two thirds or more of the transactions resulted in sales of equipments, upon which sales taxes were paid on the total sales prices, and were remitted to the State by appellee.
If the option to purchase was not exercised the property was returned to the appellee, and it made lease transactions like unto the original one until an eventual final sale was made. Such sales were made in all but four transactions, in one of which the item of property could not be located. In some instances several lease agreements were made before a final sale was consummated.
The appellee did not pay use taxes on the property returned by lessees who did not become ultimate purchasers. The Commission insisted upon these payments being made, and had two accountants make an audit of appellee's records for the five-year period commencing July 1, 1948 and terminating July 1, 1953. As a result of this audit, the Commission demanded $11,622.45 as use taxes and penalty thereon of $986.22, or a total claim of $12,608.67. Later the Commission reduced the claim by $264.46 to $12,344.21, the amount in controversy, which it exacted as use taxes. Appellee paid it under protest and brought this action for an order or decree of mandamus commanding its refund to it.
The contention of the Commission is stated in its printed argument in this Court as follows: (Italics ours.)
The appellee used but two witnesses. One was Ben Brown, its general sales manager, during the period of the audit, and William Sampson, its treasurer during the same period. Mr. Brown testified:
The testimony of Mr. Sampson was confirmatory of that of Mr. Brown that the business of the appellee and the purpose of it was not in leasing merchandise, but in selling it at retail, and that all leases by it were only for the purpose of promoting and effecting outright sales. He testified:
The parties stipulated:
The defendant-appellant offered but one witness, Mr. Koons, a field operator of the Commission, who with an assistant, Mr. Hild, audited the books and records of the appellee, for the five-year period, hereinbefore referred to. He testified that it was part of his duties to examine the records of taxpayers when assigned to do so for the purpose of determining whether they have discharged their sales-tax...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Boeing Co. v. Omdahl
...at 527. The Iowa Supreme Court, in attempting to distinguish the sales tax and the use tax in the case of Herman M. Brown Company v. Johnson, 248 Iowa 1143, 82 N.W.2d 134, 142 (1957), quoted with approval from Paramount-Richards Theatres, Inc. v. State, 256 Ala. 515, 55 So.2d 812, 821 (1951......
-
Hartford Parkview Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Groppo
...subject to the sales tax. J.A. Tobin Construction Co. v. Weed, 158 Colo. 430, 434-35, 407 P.2d 350 (1965); Herman M. Brown Co. v. Johnson, 248 Iowa 1143, 1155, 82 N.W.2d 134 (1957); Capitol Building Company, Inc. v. Langton, 101 R.I. 131, 135-36, 221 A.2d 99 (1966); see contra Indiana Depar......
-
Rust Tractor Co. v. Bureau of Revenue, 471
...following cases: Illinois Road Equipment Co. v. Department of Revenue, 32 Ill.2d 576, 207 N.E.2d 425 (1965); Herman M. Brown Company v. Johnson, 248 Iowa 1143, 82 N.W.2d 134 (1957); and Montgomery Aviation Corp. v. State, 275 Ala. 266, 154 So.2d 24 The Illinois Road Equipment Company case i......
-
Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. Morris, 48537
...'The Iowa use tax is complementary or supplementary to the sales tax, and is not designed to duplicate it.' Herman M. Brown Co. v. Johnson, 248 Iowa 1143, 82 N.W.2d 134, 135, 84 N.W.2d 'Typical use tax is not imposed for privilege of doing business but to compensate the sales tax by permitt......