Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Wanamaker

Citation2 N.Y.2d 764,157 N.Y.S.2d 972,139 N.E.2d 150
Parties, 139 N.E.2d 150 NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORP., Respondent-Appellant, v. George W. WANAMAKER, as Director of Erie County Sales Tax, Appellant- Respondent.
Decision Date15 November 1956
CourtNew York Court of Appeals

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, 286 App.Div. 446, 144 N.Y.S.2d 458.

Electric power company brought proceeding under the Civil Practice Act, § 1283 et seq., to review determination of the Director of the Erie County Sales Tax that company was indebted in certain amount for unpaid sales and use taxes under county sales tax resolution and use tax resolution.

The proceedings were transferred by the Erie Special Term, Carlton A. Fisher, J., under Section 1296 of the Civil Practice Act to the Appellate Division of the Fourth Department for determination.

The Appellate Division, Vaughan, J., 286 App.Div. 446, 144 N.Y.S.2d 458, on September 21, 1955, annulled the determination, remitted the matter to the Director of Erie County Sales Tax for further proceedings, and held that company's coal, boiler, turbine, generator, coal and ash handling equipment, and structures, which housed and steadied machinery, were exempt from sales and use taxes.

The Appellate Division, 286 App.Div. 1152, 146 N.Y.S.2d 712, denied motion to modify order of September 21, 1955, nunc pro tunc.

The company appealed to the Court of Appeals, contending that since primary facts were undisputed, issue presented was one of law, and that the substantial evidence rule had no application, and that in resolving such issue the governing statutory provision, as an exception from coverage rather than an exemption, should be liberally construed in favor of the taxpayer, not only to accord with general principles, but also to accomplish its purpose of avoiding double taxation.

Elmer R. Weil, Co. Atty., Buffalo (Maurice J. Rumizen, Asst. Co. Atty., Buffalo, John S. Ryan, Buffalo, of counsel), for appellant-respondent.

James A. O'Neill, Kenefick, Bass, Letchworth, Baldy & Phillips, Buffalo (Daniel G. Yorkey, Buffalo, Alexander C. Cordes, Buffalo, and Donald F. Runyan, Buffalo, of counsel), for petitioner.

Order affirmed with costs.

All concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • Sharp v. Tyler Pipe Industries, Inc.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • March 13, 1996
    ...state. See, e.g., Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Wanamaker, 286 A.D. 446, 144 N.Y.S.2d 458, 461-62 (1955), aff'd mem., 2 N.Y.2d 764, 157 N.Y.S.2d 972, 139 N.E.2d 150 (1956). Given such purposes, courts of other jurisdictions have recognized that construing tax-exemption statutes too narrowly......
  • Rowe Contracting Co. v. State Tax Commission
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • February 11, 1972
    ...case d, 267 N.E.2d 284, where (citing Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Wanamaker, 289 App.Div. 446, 144 N.Y.S.2d 458, affd. 2 N.Y.2d 764, 157 N.Y.S.2d 972, 139 N.E.2d 150), we declined to split somewhat artificially into 'theoretically distinct' segments a program that was essentially 'continu......
  • Constellation Nuclear Power Plants LLC v. Tax Appeals Tribunal of State
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • July 16, 2015
    ...of the governing statute (compare Matter of Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Wanamaker, 286 App.Div. 446, 449, 144 N.Y.S.2d 458 [1955], affd. 2 N.Y.2d 764, 157 N.Y.S.2d 972, 139 N.E.2d 150 [1956] ). Moreover, even when the claimed assets are analyzed in isolation, there is a rational basis for......
  • Page v. Commissioner of Revenue
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • June 8, 1983
    ...9 (1979), quoting Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Wanamaker, 286 A.D. 446, 449, 144 N.Y.S.2d 458 (N.Y.1955), aff'd, 2 N.Y.2d 764, 157 N.Y.S.2d 972, 139 N.E.2d 150 (1956). See State Tax Comm'n v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 361 Mass. 125, 130-131, 279 N.E.2d 656 (1972) (where no ambiguity......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • MoFo New York Tax Insights, Volume 5, Issue 8, August 2014
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • August 11, 2014
    ...in isolation, they produced steam and water. Citing to Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Wanamaker, 286 A.D. 446 (4th Dep't 1955), aff'd 2 N.Y.2d 764 (1956), the Tribunal explained that "it is inappropriate to artificially divide a unitary process when the facts show that the parts and steps op......

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