Zook v. Perkins
| Decision Date | 12 July 1948 |
| Docket Number | 15908. |
| Parties | ZOOK v. PERKINS, Director of Revenue. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; Joseph J Walsh, Judge.
Action by Deen Zook, individually and doing business as Zook Tire Company, to review a decision of William F. Perkins, as Director of Revenue of the State of Colorado, making a deficiency assessment against the plaintiff under the Emergency Retail Sales Act. There was a judgment for defendant, and the plaintiff brings error.
Judgment affirmed.
John E. Gorsuch, Frederic L. Kirgis and Leonard M Campbell, all of Denver, for plaintiff in error.
H Lawrence Hinkley, Duke W. Dunbar, Charles F. Cory and George K. Thomas, all of Denver, for defendant in error.
This action was brought to review a decision of the Director of Revenue making a deficiency assessment against plaintiff in error under the Emergency Retail Sales Tax Act of 1935 (S.L '35, c. 189). It involves the construction of section 2(n) of the act as applied to camelback, cushion gum, rubber cement and cord used in retreading motor vehicle tires. It was contended by plaintiff that sales of such commodities to persons engaged in the business of recapping and retreading tires were not taxable in that they were commodities of tangible personal property which became an ingredient of a manufactured product, and were exempt under section 2(n), supra, which provides as follows: 'Sales to and purchases of tangible personal property by a person engaged in the business of manufacturing, compounding for sale, profit or use, any article, substance or commodity, which tangible personal property enters into the processing of or becomes an ingredient or component part of the product or service which is manufactured, compounded or furnished and the container, label, or the furnished shipping case thereof, shall be deemed to be wholesale sales and shall be exempt from taxation under this Act.'
There is no factual issue involved, and the case presents solely a question of law which is here subject to review to-wit: Is a person engaged in tire recapping engaged in the business of manufacturing any article, substance or commodity within the meaning of the act.
The word 'manufacture' has varying meanings dependent on the circumstances of its use. As employed in the Federal Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S. C.A. § 1 et seq., it has been held to be used in its broadest sense, and in taxation statutes to have a narrower meaning. Armature Exchange, Inc., v. United States, D.C., 28 F.Supp. 10. Much refinement of reasoning has been given to the interpretation of the word 'manufacturing' by the courts, which we think unnecessary here to explore. See, In re I. Rheinstrom & Sons Co., D.C., 207 F. 119, 151.
In the Rheinstrom case the court said that, for one to be a manufacturer he must produce a new article; that, 'In order that one may be a maker, it is essential that he be the efficient cause of the coming into existence of something that did not Before exist.' In Anheuser-Busch Brewing Ass'n v. United States, 207 U.S. 556, 28 S.Ct. 204 206, 52 L.Ed. 336, the court said: 'Manufacture implies a change, but every change is not manufacture. * * * There must be transformation; a new and different article must emerge, 'having a distinctive name, character, or use.'' The tire retreader always uses as the basis of his operations an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Samper v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue
...relative to the construction of the trailer, was one for work, labor, and materials and not one of sale.' In Zook v. Perkins, Director of Revenue, 1948, 118 Colo. 464, 195 P.2d 962, the Supreme Court of Colorado held that under the Colorado Emergency Retail Sales Act of 1935, Laws 1935, p. ......
-
Unitog Rental Services, Inc. v. Director of Revenue
...a new and different article must emerge having a distinctive name, character or use." Id. at 62, quoting from Zook v. Perkins, 118 Colo. 464, 195 P.2d 962-63 (banc 1948). The common thread running throughout all of the cases in which we have defined "manufacturing" is the production of an a......
-
State ex rel. AMF Inc. v. Spradling
...parties have furnished a number of citations from foreign jurisdictions. Respondent's position is supported by two cases. Zook v. Perkins, 118 Colo. 464, 195 P.2d 962 (banc 1948), determined whether retreading a tire was 'manufacturing' as to be exempt from sales tax, saying: 'The word 'man......
-
O. K. Rubber Welding System v. Perkins
...together by the Director of Revenue and the trial court, and the same conclusion reached there and here; consequently, our decision in the Zook is applicable and controlling in the present one. The judgment is affirmed. ...
-
Colorado's Machinery Exemption
...having a distinctive name, character, or use." See East Texas Motor Freight Lines, Inc. v. Frozen Foods Express, 351 U.S. 49 (1956). 6. 195 P.2d 962 (Colo. 1948); but compare Eastern Machinery v. Peck, 114 N.E.2d 55 (Ohio 1953) (purchasing and reconditioning used machine tools and then rese......
-
Colorado Sales and Use Tax
...as added by H.B. No. 1451, §§ 1,2 and 5. 35. C.R.S. 1973, §§ 39-26-102(20) and 39-26-203(1)(f). 1887 36. See Zook v. Perkins, 118 Colo. 464, 195 P.2d 962 (1948); Carpenter v. Carman Distributing Co., supra note 11. 37. Bedford v. Colorado Fuel and Iron Corp., supra note 31. 38. Regulation 2......
-
Colorado Business Asset Acquisitions: a Tax Trap for the Unwary
...(Feb. 1996); Nelson and Bernier, "Colorado Machinery Exemption: An Update," 25 The Colorado Lawyer 113 (Oct. 1996). 36. Zook v. Perkins, 195 P.2d 962 (Colo. 1948) (en 37. 1 C.C.R. § 26-114.11(II)(A). 38. 1 C.C.R. § 26-114.11(II)(B). 39. CRS §§ 39-26-113(1), (2). 40. Id. 41. 1 C.C.R. § 26-11......