Kdal, Inc. v. County of St. Louis

• Decision Date: 02 April 1976
• Docket Number: No. 45775,45775
• Citation: 240 N.W.2d 560,308 Minn. 101
• Parties: In re Petition of KDAL, INC., for Determination of its objections to Certain Taxes Levied for the year 1973 and payable in the year 1974, Respondent, v. COUNTY OF ST. LOUIS, Appellant.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 560

240 N.W.2d 560

308 Minn. 101

In re Petition of KDAL, INC., for Determination of its

objections to Certain Taxes Levied for the year

1973 and payable in the year 1974, Respondent, v. COUNTY OF ST. LOUIS, Appellant.

No. 45775.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

April 2, 1976.

Syllabus by the Court

A television tower supporting a television antenna for transmitting television signals is exempt from property taxation pursuant to Minn.St. 272.02, subd. 1(11), and 272.03, subd. 1(c).

Warren Spannaus, Atty. Gen., Arthur J. Glassman, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept. of Revenue, St. Paul, for appellant.

Knetsch & Bang and James J. Bang, Duluth, for respondent.

Peterson, Popovich, Knutson & Flynn, Peter S. Popovich, and Ronald C. Ruud, St. Paul, for Minn. Broadcasters Ass'n, amicus curiae, seeking affirmance.

Altman, Geraghty, Mulally & Weiss and Judd S. Mulally, St. Paul, for United Television, Inc., amicus curiae, seeking affirmance.

Considered and decided by the court without oral argument.

PETERSON, Justice.

Petitioner, television station KDAL, Inc., Duluth, owns and maintains a tower 800 feet tall, which supports at the top a large television antenna used for transmitting television signals. The County of St. Louis levied a tax on this tower, and KDAL sought review in the District Court of St. Louis County. That court ordered judgment for refund of the tax that had been paid, holding that the tower was exempt property. The County of St. Louis appealed to this court, and the Commissioner of Taxation was substituted for the county for purposes of presenting the appeal. We affirm.

Minn.St. 272.01 provides that all real and personal property in this state is taxable unless otherwise exempt. Minn.St. 272.03, subd. 1, specifies that 'real property' includes the land itself and all buildings, structures, and improvements or other fixtures on it. Thus the tower is taxable unless it falls within some applicable exemption.

Minn.St. 272.02, subd. 1(11), allows an exemption for 'the property described in section 272.03, subd. 1(c).' Section 272.03, subd. 1(c)(i), provides: 'The term real property shall not include tools, implements, machinery, and equipment attached to or installed in real property for use in the business or production activity conducted thereon, regardless of size, weight or method of attachment.' Thus, even if according to the common-law rules of classification the tower would be considered real property, it is exempt and not taxable if it is equipment (or a tool, implement, or machinery) and if it is used in the business or production activity of petitioner television station.

'Equipment' is an exceedingly elastic term, the meaning of which depends on context. Webster's New International Dictionary (2 ed. 1947) p. 865, defines equipment, in part, as '(m)aterial or articles used in equipping.' To equip is '(t)o furnish for service or against a need or exigency; to fit out; to supply with whatever is necessary to efficient action in any way.' Black, Law Dictionary (4 ed.) p. 631. The word equipment has been defined in cases as 'the physical facilities available for production, including machines and tools' (Daly Bros. Shoe Co. v. H. Jacob & Sons, 49 F.Supp. 118, 120 (M.D.Pa.1943)), and '(a)nything provided for efficient service,' including fixtures (Western Maryland Dairy, Inc. v. Maryland Wrecking & Equip. Co., 146 Md. 318, 321, 126 A. 135, 136 (1924)). In another case telephone poles were held to be equipment of a telephone company (Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. Calvert, 479 S.W.2d 697, 699 (Tex.Civ.App.1972)), and in yet another case a water company's water pipes, mains, and storage tanks were held to constitute trade equipment (Wilmington Suburban Water Corp. v. Board of Assessment, 291 A.2d 293, 298 (Del.Super.1972), affirmed, 316 A.2d 211 (Del. S.Ct. 1973)).

...