Kennedy v. State Bd. of Assessment & Review, 44068.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Iowa
Writing for the CourtPARSONS
Citation224 Iowa 405,276 N.W. 205
PartiesKENNEDY v. STATE BOARD OF ASSESSMENT AND REVIEW.
Docket NumberNo. 44068.,44068.
Decision Date23 November 1937

224 Iowa 405
276 N.W. 205

KENNEDY
v.
STATE BOARD OF ASSESSMENT AND REVIEW.

No. 44068.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Nov. 23, 1937.


Appeal from District Court, Cerro Gordo County; M. H. Kepler, Judge.

This case was in the district court on appeal from ruling of Board of Assessment and Review. Plaintiff purchased fertilizers, on which he was charged sales tax prior to the enactment of chapter 196 of the 47 General Assembly. The Board of Assessment and Review held the plaintiff liable on the sales tax, and refused to order it returned to plaintiff. In the district court the appeal was dismissed.

Affirmed.

E. B. Stillman, of Clear Lake, for appellant.

John H. Mitchell, Atty. Gen., and Clair E. Hamilton, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.


PARSONS, Justice.

Plaintiff in this case filed a petition in the district court of Cerro Gordo county, Iowa, setting forth that on the 19th day of May, 1936, he filed with the State Board of Assessment and Review his application asking for refund of sales tax paid for fertilizer, as set out in his application; that this application was presented to the board, and on the 28th of May, 1936, an order was entered by said board, in which the application was denied, and on the same date plaintiff appealed from the decision and order of the State Board of Assessment and Review; that he urges before the court the same reasons for refund of the tax, $91.89, which was illegally demanded of him, and which he, through error and mistake, paid as sales tax, and for all these reasons he asked that he be given refund of the taxes so paid; then followed prayer for decree.

The facts are that Kennedy, the appellant, purchased from the local representative of Swift Company Fertilizer Works, 88,000 pounds of Swift's Red Steer Fertilizer, at the price of $59.20 per ton, or a total of $2,604.80; and on April 6, 1935, he purchased of the same company 74,000 pounds of the same fertilizer at $42.60 per ton, or a total of $1,576.20; and on April 6, 1935, he purchased from the same company 10,000 pounds of another fertilizer at $26.70 per ton, or a total of $133.50; that he paid all together $4,594.50 for this fertilizer, and upon this amount he paid a 2 per cent. sales tax, or the sum of $91.80.

Plaintiff set out these matters before the Board of Assessment and Review, and that body refused his application, and he then appealed to the district court of Cerro Gordo county, Iowa.

It appears from the stipulations in the case that the plaintiff is a resident of Cerro Gordo County; that he is an acreage grower of potatoes, onions, and other vegetables, and that he purchased the fertilizer in the amounts set forth in his application filed before the board; that the

[276 N.W. 206]

fertilizer was used on the ground on which plaintiff raised potatoes, onions, etc.; then he set forth the constituent elements of the fertilizers which was all used on the land in the spring of 1935; he set forth the amount of potatoes and other vegetables taken from the land. There was some testimony in the case by various parties as to the use of these fertilizers.

The theory of the plaintiff was that he purchased these fertilizers to use in the ground, and they were absorbed in the potatoes, and other vegetables, and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 practice notes
  • Peoples' Gas & Elec. Co. v. State Tax Comm'n, No. 46987.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • September 16, 1947
    ...by adding also, ‘but does not include commercial fertilizer * * *.’ Code 1946, § 422.42. Kennedy v. State Board of Assessment and Review, 224 Iowa 405, 408, 276 N.W. 205, 207, points out that this exempted commercial fertilizer not theretofore exempted, and states: ‘Taxation is the rule, no......
  • Zeigler v. People, 14643.
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • March 30, 1942
    ...on feed and fattening them for the market comes under the definition of processing. We believe that the case of Kennedy v. State Board, 224 Iowa 405, 276 N.W. 205, 206, sufficiently answers that contention when it says: 'As the court understands the matter, processing is some change made in......
  • Fischer Artificial Ice & Cold Storage Co. v. Iowa State Tax Commission, No. 49068
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • March 5, 1957
    ...section 238. One of the most widely cited precedents on the meaning of processing is Kennedy v. State Board of Assessment and Review, 224 Iowa 405, 407, 276 N.W. 205, 206. The case holds the use of fertilizer in the ground to promote the growth of vegetables is not processing of tangible pe......
  • Linwood Stone Products Co. v. State Dept. of Revenue, No. 53873
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • March 10, 1970
    ...Artificial Ice & Cold Storage Co. v. State Tax Commission, 248 Iowa 497, 81 N.W.2d 437; Kennedy v. State Board of Assessment and Review, 224 Iowa 405, 276 N.W. Although various definitions are referred to in like cases, including one found in Webster's New International Dictionary, Second E......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
15 cases
  • Peoples' Gas & Elec. Co. v. State Tax Comm'n, No. 46987.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • September 16, 1947
    ...by adding also, ‘but does not include commercial fertilizer * * *.’ Code 1946, § 422.42. Kennedy v. State Board of Assessment and Review, 224 Iowa 405, 408, 276 N.W. 205, 207, points out that this exempted commercial fertilizer not theretofore exempted, and states: ‘Taxation is the rule, no......
  • Zeigler v. People, 14643.
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • March 30, 1942
    ...on feed and fattening them for the market comes under the definition of processing. We believe that the case of Kennedy v. State Board, 224 Iowa 405, 276 N.W. 205, 206, sufficiently answers that contention when it says: 'As the court understands the matter, processing is some change made in......
  • Fischer Artificial Ice & Cold Storage Co. v. Iowa State Tax Commission, No. 49068
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • March 5, 1957
    ...section 238. One of the most widely cited precedents on the meaning of processing is Kennedy v. State Board of Assessment and Review, 224 Iowa 405, 407, 276 N.W. 205, 206. The case holds the use of fertilizer in the ground to promote the growth of vegetables is not processing of tangible pe......
  • Linwood Stone Products Co. v. State Dept. of Revenue, No. 53873
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • March 10, 1970
    ...Artificial Ice & Cold Storage Co. v. State Tax Commission, 248 Iowa 497, 81 N.W.2d 437; Kennedy v. State Board of Assessment and Review, 224 Iowa 405, 276 N.W. Although various definitions are referred to in like cases, including one found in Webster's New International Dictionary, Second E......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT