Sharper Image Corp. v. Miller
Decision Date | 22 April 1997 |
Docket Number | No. 15486,15486 |
Citation | 692 A.2d 774,240 Conn. 531 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | SHARPER IMAGE CORPORATION v. Donald F. MILLER, Commissioner of Revenue Services. |
Michael I. Eisenstein, pro hac vice, with whom was Michael J. Mannion, New Milford, for appellant (plaintiff).
Aaron S. Bayer, Deputy Attorney General, with whom were Gregory T. D'Auria, Assistant Attorney General, and, on the brief, Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General, and Richard K. Greenberg, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee (defendant).
Before BORDEN, BERDON, NORCOTT, KATZ and PALMER, JJ.
The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the plaintiff, under the circumstances of this case, is liable for the payment of a use tax, pursuant to General Statutes §§ 12-411 and 12-407(5), on catalogs advertising the plaintiff's merchandise that were printed and mailed to Connecticut residents from outside the state. After the defendant, the commissioner of revenue services (commissioner), imposed a use tax on the catalogs mailed to Connecticut residents, the plaintiff, Sharper Image Corporation (Sharper Image), challenged the assessment by appealing to the Superior Court. The Superior Court affirmed the commissioner's action, and Sharper Image appealed to the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court, but requested certification for review of its decision to this court pursuant to Practice Book § 4135, 1 because it found "that a substantial question of law exists that should be reviewed by the Supreme Court...." Sharper Image Corp. v. Miller, 42 Conn.App. 310, 318, 678 A.2d 977 (1996). We granted the Appellate Court's request for certification. 2 We affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court, but based in part on different reasons. 3
The facts as stipulated to by the parties were set out in the Appellate Court decision. "Sharper Image is a Delaware corporation with headquarters in San Francisco, California. It is engaged nationally and internationally in the retail sale of merchandise, and makes both in-store and mail order sales.
Sharper Image Corp. v. Miller, supra, 42 Conn.App. at 311-13, 678 A.2d 977.
Because the "matter was presented to the trial court entirely on the pleadings, stipulations of the parties and a single plaintiff's exhibit"; id., at 313, 678 A.2d 977; we, like the Appellate Court, conduct a plenary review of the trial court's decision "and we must decide whether its conclusions are legally and logically correct and find support in the facts that appear in the record." United Technologies Corp. v. Groppo, 238 Conn. 761, 767, 680 A.2d 1297 (1996).
This case requires us to examine the purpose and application of the Connecticut use tax, and the statutory scheme attached to that tax. (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Steelcase, Inc. v. Crystal, 238 Conn. 571, 578, 680 A.2d 289 (1996). "The use tax ... was developed to safeguard [s]tate sales tax revenues from erosion by purchases of goods outside the [s]tate, and to protect local merchants from loss of business to border and other [s]tates that either have no sales tax or whose sales tax rate is lower than that of the merchant's [s]tate." 2 J. Hellerstein & W. Hellerstein, State Taxation (1992) § 16.01, p. 16-2.
(Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Steelcase, Inc. v. Crystal, supra, 238 Conn. at 577-78, 680 A.2d 289.
The general rule is that "when the issue is the imposition of a tax, rather than a claimed right to an exemption or a deduction, the governing authorities must be strictly construed against the commissioner and in favor of the taxpayer." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Morton Buildings, Inc. v. Bannon, 222 Conn. 49, 54, 607 A.2d 424 (1992). Nevertheless, because "[t]he use tax was created as a complementary measure to insure the equitable diffusion of the tax burden upon both in-state purchases of tangible personal property and out-of-state purchases of tangible personal property where such property is used, stored or [otherwise] consumed within the state, thus being, in a certain sense, a gap-filling measure"; International Business Machines Corp. v. Brown, 167 Conn. 123, 129, 355 A.2d 236 (1974); we must liberally construe that tax in order "to achieve such purposes." Id. In other words, a liberal construction of the use tax is necessary to achieve its gap-filling objective of allocating, in an equitable manner, the burden of taxation on goods sold in Connecticut, as well as on those goods purchased outside the state for use in Connecticut. See 2 J. Hellerstein & W. Hellerstein, su...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Commissioner of Revenue v. JC PENNEY COMPANY, INC
...L. c. 641, § 2.5 See, e.g., Service Merchandise Co. v. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 188 Ariz. 414, 417 (Ct. App. 1996); Sharper Image Corp. v. Miller, 240 Conn. 531, 540 (1997); J.C. Penney Co. v. Balka, 254 Neb. 521, 527 Moreover, the economic and commercial reality of the taxpayer's distribu......
-
Rainforest Cafe v. Dept. of Revenue
...tax twice, an absurd result, for it is well established that double taxation is a result to be avoided. See Sharper Image Corp. v. Miller, 240 Conn. 531, 537, 692 A.2d 774 (1997) (construing statute to avoid double taxation); Waterbury Motor Lease, Inc. v. Tax Commissioner, 174 Conn. 51, 63......
-
Oxford Tire Supply, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue Services
...and common law principles governing the same general subject matter." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Sharper Image Corp. v. Miller, 240 Conn. 531, 536, 692 A.2d 774 (1997). Finally, "[t]o ascertain the intention of the legislature with respect to a tax exemption, we employ three overla......
-
Sharper Image Corp. v. Department of Revenue of State of Fla.
...did cause them to be distributed in Connecticut, which satisfies the broad taxable event of 'other use'...." Sharper Image, Corp. v. Miller, 240 Conn. 531, 692 A.2d 774, 779 (1997). The Connecticut use tax statute, unlike the Florida statute, does not include the word "distribution." Nevert......
-
1997 Connecticut Tax Developments
...Ct. 1997). 78.504 U.S. 298 (1992). 79.684 A.2d 539 (D.C. App. 1997). 80.Super. Ct. No. 97-574583, J.D. Hartford New Britain (pending). 81.240 Conn. 531, 692 A.2d 774 82.See, e.g., Service Merchandise Co. v. Dept. of Revenue, 188 Ariz. 414, 937 P2d 336 (1996) 83.Supra, note 81, at 540. See, ......
-
Taxpayers mailing catalogs into states.
...had made a taxable use of catalogs by directing that the catalogs be sent to specific in-state residents (Sharper Image Corp. v. Miller, 692 A2d 774 (Conn. 1997)). Similar to the Massachusetts and Michigan use tax statutes, the Connecticut use tax statute makes no reference to the term "dis......