Sale v. Johnson, 385

• Decision Date: 27 February 1963
• Docket Number: No. 385,385
• Citation: 258 N.C. 749,129 S.E.2d 465
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: W. E. SALE, W. Frank Sale, and Fred A. Sale, Trading and Doing Business as W. E. Sale and Sons, Ronda, N. C., v. W. A. JOHNSON, Commissioner of Revenue of the State of North Carolina.

Page 465

129 S.E.2d 465

258 N.C. 749

W. E. SALE, W. Frank Sale, and Fred A. Sale, Trading and Doing Business as W. E. Sale and Sons, Ronda, N. C., v. W. A. JOHNSON, Commissioner of Revenue of the State of North Carolina.

No. 385

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Feb. 27, 1963

Atty. Gen. T. W. Bruton and Asst. Atty. Gen. Peyton B. Abbott, for the State.

Allen, Henderson & Williams, by Hoke F. Henderson, Elkin, for plaintiff appellees.

PARKER, Justice.

Defendant assigns as error the judgment on the pleadings entered upon plaintiffs' motion.

The complaint alleges, and the answer admits, the following: All procedural requirements of G.S. § 105-267 have been met by plaintiffs to maintain this action for a refund of North Carolina sales tax paid by plaintiffs under protest to defendant State Commissioner of Revenue for the period 1 August 1958 to 1 July 1961. Plaintiffs, doing business under the name of W. E. Sale and Sons, own and operate a manufacturing business at Ronda in Wilkes County, which is principally engaged in the manufacture of chicken and turkey coops.

Paragraph five of the complaint alleges that 'plaintiffs sell their coops to farmers, poultrymen, and persons, firms, and corporations engaged in the poultry business, and such coops are used for packaging, shipment, and delivery of tangible personal property which is sold either at wholesale or retail, or such coops are delivered with the chickens or turkeys to the customer, and therefore are exempt from the retail sales and use tax under the provisions of G.S. § 105-164.13, subsection 37.'

Paragraph five of the answer, replying to paragraph five of the complaint, says:

'It is admitted that the plaintiffs sell their coops to farmers, poultrymen and persons, firms and corporations engaged in the poultry business, and that such coops are used by such customers in the delivery of live poultry, which is sold by such customers at either wholesale or retail. Except as herein admitted, the allegations of paragraph 5 of the complaint are denied except as further admitted and set out in tthe minutes of the hearing held before the defendant Commissioner of Revenue on September 28, 1961, a copy of which minutes is attached hereto and marked EXHIBIT 'A' and asked to be taken as a part of this answer.'

The relevant part of the minutes of the hearing held before the defendant State Commissioner of Revenue on 28 September 1961, a copy of which minutes is attached to the answer and made a part thereof, reads:

'* * * The sales of coops on which tax was assessed were identified as sales made to poultry processors who use the coops to haul chickens from their source of supply to their processing plants; sales to producers and farmers for use in hauling their chickens to the market; and sales to poultry dealers who use the coops to haul chickens and turkeys which are grown for them under contract with farmers and producers. The taxpayers contend that their sales of coops as described above are exempt from retail sales and/or use tax under provisions of G.S. 105-164.13(37) of the Sales and Use Tax Law as revised in 1959. The taxpayers maintain that those sales of coops come within the purview of the exemption since the purchasers use the coops to deliver the chickens and turkeys whch are ultimately sold, notwithstanding some of the sales occur only after the chickens and turkeys are processed.

'DECISION:

'The Commissioner has considered the taxpayers' contention with respect to the sales of coops to poultry processors, producers and farmers, and dealers associated with contract growers. The Commissioner does not agree that the coops purchased and used as a means of transporting the users' chickens and turkeys come within the purview of the exemption provided by G.S. 105-164.13(37) of the 1959 Statute. It is the decision of the Commissioner that the tax on the amended audit has been properly assessed, and it is therefore directed that the amount of the amended assessment be sustained. It is further directed that the statutory penalty be abated.'

Paragraph six of the complaint alleges, and the answer admits, that on 15 December 1961 plaintiffs paid under protest to defendant State Commissioner of Revenue the sum of $4,487.73 in sales tax assessed against them for the period from 1 August 1958 to 1 July 1961. This paragraph of the complaint avers that this assessment of tax was contrary to the provisions of G.S. § 105-164.13, subsection (37). Defendant denies this conclusion of law in the corresponding paragraph of the answer.

The General Assembly at its 1957 Session completely revised the North Carolina Sales and Use Tax Act. Session Laws 1957, chapter 1340, Article 5. This article became effective 1 July 1957, and is codified as General Statutes, chapter 105, Article 5, sections 105-164.1 et seq. Division III of this article is entitled EXEMPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS. G.S. § 105-164.13 under this article reads: 'The sale at retail, the use, storage or consumption in this State of the following tangible personal property is specifically exempted from the tax imposed by this article:' Thirty-eight subdivisions of tangible personal property are set forth as specifically exempt. Subdivision 37, which is relevant at all times here, reads as follows:

'Sales of wrapping paper, labels, wrapping twine, paper, cloth, plastic bags, cartons, packages and containers, cores, cones or spools, wooden boxes, baskets, coops and barrels, including paper cups, napkins and drinking straws and like articles sold to manufacturers, producers and retailers, when such materials are used for packaging, shipment or delivery of tangible personal property which is sold either at wholesale or retail or when such articles constitute a part of the sale of such tangible personal property and are delivered with it to the customer.'

Plaintiffs make these contentions in their brief:

'* * * that portion of subsection (37) which reads: 'when such materials are used for packaging, shipment or delivery of tangible personal property which is sold either at wholesale or retail,' is the controlling portion of the statute which exempts the sale of coops from the sales and use tax imposed by Chapter 105 of the Statute. The defendant, on the other hand, undertakes to eliminate this and to place all the emphasis upon the closing words of subsection (37), which reads: 'when such articles constitute a part of the sale of such tangible personal property and are delivered with it to the customer.' These two provisions in subsection (37) of the Statute are connected with the word 'or'; therefore, it is plaintiffs' contention that the sales of coops which comply with the requirements of EITHER OF THESE PROVISIONS ARE EXEMPT from the sales and use tax under this statute.

'The plaintiffs contend that the approved and general practice in the trade is to transport live poultry in coops; therefore, coops are used for packaging, shipment, or delivery of tangible personal property within the purview of the exclusion of subsection (37) of the Statute.

'The applicable statute is clear in its provision for the exclusion of items set forth therein from the sales and use tax and shows that the Legislature clearly had in mind the exclusion of coops; * * *'.

Defendant's contention is to the effect that G.S. § 105-164.13(37) exempts from the sales tax the articles of tangible personal property therein enumerated, when such materials are used for packaging, shipment or delivery of tangible personal property which is sold either at wholesale or retail, and when such materials attach to and constitute a part of the sale of such tangible personal property and are delivered with it to the customer.

In our opinion, the language of G.S. § 105-164.13(37) is not plain and clear, but ambiguous. The difficulty of its construction arises from the terms that sales of the materials specified therein are exempt from the sales tax 'when such materials are used for packaging, shipment or delivery of tangible personal property which is sold either at wholesale or retail or when such articles constitute a part of the sale of such tangible personal property and are delivered with it to the customer.'

Consequently, the duty devolves upon us to construe this subsection of the statute in order to ascertain and declare the meaning and intention of the Legislature, and to carry such meaning and intention into effect. Midkiff v. Granite Corp., 235 N.C. 149, 69 S.E.2d 166; Young v. Whitehall Co., 229 N.C. 360, 49 S.E.2d 797; Whitford v. Insurance Co., 163 N.C. 223, 79 S.E. 501, Ann.Cas.1915B, 270; 50 Am.Jur., Statutes, sec. 223. This Court said in Watson Industries v. Shaw, Comr. of Revenue, 235 N.C. 203, 69 S.E.2d 505: 'The legislative intent is the essence of the law and the guiding star in the interpretation thereof.'

'And where the meaning of a statute is doubtful, the history of legislation on the general subject dealt with, including statutory changes over a period of years, may be considered in connection with the object, purpose, and language of the statute, in order to arrive at its true meaning. ' Victory Cab Co. v. Charlotte, 234 N.C. 572, 68 S.E.2d 433.

On 10 November 1956 the Commission for the Study of the Revenue Structure of the State made its report to the then Governor of the State of North Carolina. On page 44 of this Report is set forth recommended changes in the sales and use taxes. Its second recommendation is that 'the present levies on the retail sale and/or use, storage or consumption of tangible personal property now subject to the retail sales and/or use tax be retained in the main. There is, however, included in the proposed recodification some recommended changes as follows: * * * (c) Certain transactions or kinds of tangible personal property now exempt by administrative interpretation which in the opinion of the Commission should continue to be exempt are specifically set forth in the exemption section. ' The...