Miller v. Peck
| Decision Date | 04 June 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 32927,32927 |
| Citation | 158 Ohio St. 17,47 O.O. 485,106 N.E.2d 776 |
| Parties | , 47 O.O. 485 MILLER v. PECK, Tax Com'r. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
A mechanical incubator and tools exclusively devoted to the operation of a commercial hatchery in incubating chicken eggs and hatching baby chicks for immediate sale as an independent commercial business are for the purpose of taxation used in a manufacturing process and, under the provisions of Section 5388, General Code, are assessable for tangible personal property taxes at 50 per cent of their true value in money.
This is an appeal from a decision of the Board of Tax Appeals confirming increased tangible personal property tax assessments for the years 1948 and 1949 on certain incubator equipment and tools owned by the taxpayer, appellant herein, and used in a commercial hatchery. The taxpayer, claiming this property was machinery or equipment used either in agriculture or in manufacturing maintains that under the provisions of Section 5388, General Code, it was assessable at 50 per cent of its true value in money instead of 70 per cent of such value as in case of other tangible personal property. The Tax Commissioner, appellee herein, held that such property was not entitled to the preferential rate of assessment and assessed it at 70 per cent of its true value.
The taxpayer operates a commercial hatchery on a small tract of land near Lisbon, Ohio. Chicken eggs are purchased and incubated by the equipment in question as a result of which baby chicks are commercially hatched and sold. He does not engage in any farm production of crops or livestock other than the hatching of chickens. The operation of this hatchery is his sole business activity.
The Board of Tax Appeals affirmed the orders of the Tax Commissioner holding that the taxpayer in the use of the incubator and tools was not engaged in agriculture but not indicating any view as to whether he used the property in manufacturing.
Riddle & Riddle and Richard D. Kennedy, Lisbon, for appellant.
C. William O'Neill, Atty. Gen., Thomas R. Lloyd and Paul Tague, Jr., Columbus, for appellee.
The question at issue is whether under Section 5388, General Code, incubator equipment operated in a commercial hatchery is used in agriculture or manufacturing so as to render it assessable for tangible personal property tax purposes at 50 per cent of its true value rather than at 70 per cent of such value, the rate required in case it is not so used.
The determination of the issue involved depends upon the construction of Section 5388, General Code, the pertinent parts of which are as follows:
'Excepting as herein otherwise provided, personal property shall be listed and assessed at 70 per centum of the true value thereof, in money, on the day as of which it is required to be listed * * *.
'* * *
'Personal property of the following kinds, used in business shall be listed and assessed at 50 per centum of the true value thereof, in money * * *:
'(1) All engines, machinery, tools and implements of a manufacturer mentioned in section 5386 of the General Code * * * and all engines, machinery, tools, implements and domestic animals used in agriculture * * *.'
The statutes do not define the term, 'agriculture,' as related to the use of personal property for the conduct of agriculture as a business. But in the instant case there was no connection between the use of the property in question and any agricultural pursuit carried on by the taxpayer. A majority of the court is of the opinion that the property in question was not 'used in agriculture,' and the Board of Tax Appeals was justified in so holding.
A more serious question is whether the equipment and tools involved in the instant case were the tools and implements of a 'manufacturer,' as that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harlan Sprague Dawley, Inc. v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue
...150 (commercial raising of baby chicks constitutes manufacturing under North Carolina sales tax statute); Miller v. Peck (1952), 158 Ohio St. 17, 47 O.O. 485, 106 N.E.2d 776 (commercial chicken hatchery's machinery was the artificial means of developing and transforming eggs into chicks, an......
-
Bain v. Department of Revenue
...of Revenue was based primarily on cases from other jurisdictions, e.g., a fish hatchery held to be manufacturing, Miller v. Peck, 158 Ohio St. 17, 106 N.E.2d 776 (1952); making of beer held to be manufacturing because it required the application of labor, skill, or sophisticated machinery, ......
-
Perdue, Inc. v. State Dept. of Assessments and Taxation
...In a final attempt to secure this exemption appellant asks us to adopt the reasoning of the Supreme Court of Ohio in Miller v. Peck, 158 Ohio St. 17, 106 N.E.2d 776 (1952). That court held mechanical incubators to be tools and implements of a manufacturer entitled to an exemption. However, ......
-
B.F. Goodrich Co. v. Peck
...Distillers Products Corp. v. Glander, supra; Eastern Machinery Co. v. Peck, 160 Ohio St. 144, 149, 114 N.E.2d 55; Miller v. Peck, 158 Ohio St. 17, 106 N.E.2d 776; and General Cigar Co., Inc., v. Peck, However, in the instant case, it is apparent that the so-called exception in Section 5325-......