School Dist. of Philadelphia v. Rosenberg
| Decision Date | 04 January 1961 |
| Parties | SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA, Appellant, v. Israel ROSENBERG, trading as M. Rosenberg & Sons. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Edward B. Soken, C. Brewster Rhoads, Hugh G. Moulton Philadelphia, for appellant.
Albert M. Roth, Philadelphia, for appellee.
Before CHARLES ALVIN JONES, C. J., and BELL, MUSMANNO, BENJAMIN R JONES, COHEN, BOK, and EAGEN, JJ.
This appeal is by the School District of the City of Philadelphia from the order and judgment of the court below, sustaining the contention of the appellee that he is not liable for certain assessments against him of General Business Taxes for the years 1953 through 1958, imposed under the provisions of the Act of May 23, 1949, P.L. 1669, 24 P.S. (Supp.) § 584.1 et seq., as amended.
Under said statute, receipts realized from the 'delivery of goods * * * of the taxpayer's own manufacture' to customers outside of Philadelphia are exempt from assessment. The lower court concluded that the appellee is a manufacturer of the goods involved which were sole and delivered outside of the territory of the school district. We are asked to review the correctness of this ruling.
The appellee is in the business of selling men's clothing at wholesale prices. The record sustains the following facts: Appellee buys woolen piece goods, bindings, edgings, linings, buttons and trimmings which are fit for the making of men's suits and sport coats. These goods and items are all manufactured by others. After examining and determining the suitability of the woolens for men's garments, appellee sends the cloth that is satisfactory to an independent contractor for sponging, the usual practice in the garment industry. Upon its return, he arranges the cloth so as to eliminate shadows and mismatching. He designs the patterns for the garments cuts the cloth to conform thereto and eliminates defects which would prevent the sale of the completed garment. He assembles the cutto-pattern materials and marks them as to size and model. Then each of the coats consisting of over one hundred pieces and each of the trousers consisting of about sixty pieces are sent to two independent contractors to be sewn together by machine. The appellee exercises constant, close supervision over the sewing process. The plant wherein the coats are sewn together, and which is used exclusively for the apellee's business is owned by the individual appellee and his brother, as a joint enterprise. The completed garments are returned to him for distribution and sale.
The issue is before this Court on 'broad certiorari.' It is our duty to examine the record to determine whether or not the findings of...
To continue reading
Request your trial