Opinion
May 22, 1962.
June 28, 1962.
Taxation — Selective Sales and Use Tax — Stud fees — Selective Sales and Use Tax Act.
In this case it was Held that the appellant, a breeder of racing horses, was liable, under the Selective Sales and Use Tax Act of 1956, P. L. (1955) 1228, as amended, for a sales tax on (1) the stud fees received and (2) the sales of tangible personal property occurring in Pennsylvania (supplies used and consumed by the appellant in the operation of the business) on which the tax was not paid to the vendor at the time of purchase.
Mr. Chief Justice BELL and Mr. Justice MUSMANNO dissented.
Mr. Justice BENJAMIN R. JONES took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Argued May 22, 1962. Before BELL, C. J., MUSMANNO, COHEN, EAGEN and O'BRIEN, JJ.
Appeal, No. 32, May T., 1962, from judgment of Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, No. 459 Commonwealth Docket, 1960, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Hanover Shoe Farms, Inc. Judgment affirmed; reargument refused July 24, 1962.
Same case in court below: 27 Pa. D. C.2d 366.
Taxpayer petitioned the Board of Finance and Revenue for a reassessment of its sales and use tax, claiming that it is engaged in a farming or agricultural enterprise, and exempt from tax. Upon a denial of the petition, taxpayer appealed to the Commonwealth Court.
Opinion filed finding for Commonwealth, defendant's exceptions overruled and judgment entered for Commonwealth, opinion by SHELLEY, J. Defendant appealed.
John McI. Smith, with him Edwin M. Buchen, and Laird and Buchen, and Nauman, Smith, Shissler Hall, for appellant.
Albert D. Stuart, Assistant Attorney General, with him Richard H. Wagner, Assistant Attorney General, and David Stahl, Attorney General, for Commonwealth, appellee.
The appellant is engaged in the business of breeding, raising and selling "standard bred" harness racing horses, and the providing of breeding or stud services to others for a consideration.
The case involves appellant's liability under the Pennsylvania "Selective Sales and Use Tax Act" of March 6, 1956, P. L. (1955) 1228, as amended, 72 P. S. § 3403.1 et seq., for a sales tax on: (1) the "stud fees" received; (2) the sales of tangible personal property occurring in Pennsylvania (supplies used and consumed by the appellant in the operation of the business) on which the tax was not paid to the vendor at the time of purchase.
The lower court correctly decided the issues involved, and faultlessly and effectively answered every pertinent question raised by the appellant in this appeal.
Judgment affirmed.
Mr. Chief Justice BELL and Mr. Justice MUSMANNO dissent.
Mr. Justice BENJAMIN R. JONES took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.