West Lake Quarry & Material Co. v. Schaffner
| Decision Date | 09 March 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 54291,No. 2,54291,2 |
| Citation | 451 S.W.2d 140 |
| Parties | WEST LAKE QUARRY & MATERIAL CO., Inc., et al., Respondents, v. James E. SCHAFFNER, Director, Missouri Department of Revenue, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Ben Uchitelle, St. Louis, Cullen Coil, Jefferson City, for respondents; Carson, Inglish, Monaco & Coil, Jefferson City, of counsel.
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Walter W. Nowotny, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for appellant.
LAURANCE M. HYDE, Special Commissioner.
Appeal by State Director of Revenue from judgment in favor of respondents for refund of $36,040.96 collected from them under the sales tax law, which amount the court found was within the exemption of § 144.030, subd. 3(4). We have jurisdiction not only because of the amount involved but also because a state officer is a party and the construction of a revenue law is involved. § 3, Art. V, Constitution, V.A.M.S.
The issue involved is whether certain machinery and equipment of West Lake Quarry & Material Co., Inc. comes within the exemption provided by § 144.030, subd. 3(4) as follows:
'(4) Machinery and equipment purchased and used to establish new or to expand existing manufacturing, mining or fabricating plants in the state if such machinery is used directly in manufacturing, mining or fabricating a product which is intended to be sold ultimately for final use or consumption; * * *.'
West Lake's contested operation is to remove stone from the ground and process it for sale by breaking it into various sizes salable for various purposes, from small sizes for roads to largest sizes for river levees, and by grinding it for agricultural lime. West Lake also operates asphalt and concrete operations which are conceded to be manufacturing and are not involved herein. The Director contends that this operation is neither mining nor manufacturing. West Lake's operation is described in an agreed statement of facts and testimony of its president in part as follows:
'The quarrying operation involves the removal of overburden (dirt and in some cases sand) to expose the rock, the removal of the rock from the ground by means of blasting by use of explosives, the removal of the rock so blasted from the quarry pit, crushing and sizing and selling such rock. * * * West Lake blasts rock from the ground by the use of explosives. The rock so removed from the ground remains in the quarry pit. The rock so blasted (after some of it has been reduced in size by the use of a so-called headache ball) is picked up from the quarry pit by a power shovel and placed in trucks which haul such rock a distance varying from 200 feet to a mile to a hopper into which the rock is dumped by and from the trucks. There is a 'feeder' under the hopper which conveys the rock to scalping screens. The screens, due to the size of their mesh and by shaking, eliminate the 'fines' (dirt, crushed rock, etc.), and then the rock goes into the Pioneer Jaw Crusher (the item here in question) which breaks the rock to certain sizes so that after the sizing, hereinafter described, it can be sold as a product for final use or consumption. The crusher is adjustable so that the rock may be sized to several desired dimensions.
'After the rock goes through the crusher it falls onto an apron feeder which, in turn delivers the rock to a conveyor belt which, in turn, delivers the rock to a series of screens for further sizing purposes and from these screens the rock drops into various bins provided for the different sizes of rock.
Respondent's president testified:
'Q As I understand you, irrespective of whatever else, what anybody else may do, as far as West Lake Quarry and Material Company, Inc., is concerned, no portion of your rock is salable even for dike purposes, when it is blasted from the ledge and falls into the pit?
'Q It has to have something done to it even if it's sold for dike purposes?
'A Right.
'Q If it's sold for something other than dike purposes it has to have more done to it?
'A Right.
'Q The final thing is the agricultural lime, where it has to have the most done to it?
'A Yes.
'Q It's between the dike and agricultural lime, in between there, you have all different sizes and shapes of rock?
'A Right.'
The Director to support his contention that quarrying is not mining cites § 293.020, RSMo, V.A.M.S., providing:
'Unless indicated otherwise, this chapter applies to all mines in this state engaged in the mining or extraction of minerals for commercial purposes, except barite, marble, limestone, and sand and gravel, or the prospecting for or the production of petroleum or natural gas; but does apply insofar as shale is mined or extracted for the purpose of recovering oil.'
This is part of Chapter 293 on Mining Regulations and we think it indicates legislative belief that the mining regulations would apply to these excepted operations if they were not specifically excluded. It is also to be noted that § 293.010 defines 'strip mine,' the description of which therein is similar to the process of quarrying stone. It is said (58 C.J.S. Mines and Minerals § 3, p. 36): 'The term 'mining' * * * is not now limited in its meaning to the method of excavation, and, as used in some connections, includes open workings or quarries.' It is also said (58 C.J.S. Mines and Minerals § 2, p. 24): 'The word 'mineral,' in its ordinary and common meaning, generally includes stone and rock deposits, whether obtained from a mine, as the word would seem to imply, or by open working, and whether containing metallic substances or substances entirely nonmetallic.' See also 36 Am.Jur. 281--284, Mines and Minerals §§ 2--5; Union Drainage Dist. No. 6, etc. v. Manteno Limestone Co., 341 Ill.App. 353, 93...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rowe Contracting Co. v. State Tax Commission
...S.W.2d 1050; Michigan Allied Dairy Assn. v. State Bd. of Tax Admn., 302 Mich. 643, 646--651, 5 N.W.2d 516; West Lake Quarry & Material Co. Inc. v. Schaffner (Mo.), 451 S.W.2d 140, 143; Tulsa Mach. Co. v. Oklahoma Tax Commn., 208 Okl. 138, 139--140, 253 P.2d It, of course, will be noted that......
-
Solite Corp. v. King George County
...470 S.W.2d 338 (Ky.1971); Wilson & Co., Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 531 S.W.2d 752, 754 (Mo.1976); West Lake Quarry & Material Co. v. Schaffner, 451 S.W.2d 140, 143 (Mo.1970) (definition based upon suitability for common use). We have considered these cases cited by Solite and see no rea......
-
Tilcon-Warren Quarries Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue
...coal). Although a few States have held the contrary, we follow what is clearly the majority view. See, e.g., West Lake Quarry & Material Co. v. Schaffner, 451 S.W.2d 140 (Mo.1970); Tulsa Mach. Co. v. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n, 208 Okla. 138, 253 P.2d 1067 (1953). The process engaged in by the tax......
-
State ex rel. Dravo Corp. v. Spradling
...this particular statute. Heidelberg Central, Inc. v. Director of Dept. of Revenue, 476 S.W.2d 502 (Mo.1972); West Lake Quarry & Material Co. v. Schaffner, 451 S.W.2d 140 (Mo.1970). In the latter case the Court said loc. cit. 142: 'Obviously, the purpose of exempting machinery and equipment ......
-
Colorado's Machinery Exemption
...Co. v. Tax Commissioner, 134 Ohio St. 529 (1938) (crushing limestone is not manufacturing); West Lake Quarry & Material Co. v. Schaffner, 451 S.W.2d 140 (Mo. 1970) (machinery used to grind rock into various sizes to be put to different uses qualified for the sales tax exemption). 14. Shanty......