Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

COMMONWEALTH v. INTERSTATE AMIESITE CORP. (10/09/63)

October 9, 1963

COMMONWEALTH
v.
INTERSTATE AMIESITE CORP., APPELLANT.



Appeal, No. 29, May T., 1963, from judgment of Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, No. 37 Commonwealth Docket, 1961, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. The Interstate Amiesite Corporation. Judgment vacated.

COUNSEL

Francis B. Haas, Jr., with him Richard C. Fox, and McNees, Wallace & Nurick, for appellant.

Edward T. Baker, Deputy Attorney General, with him Walter E. Alessandroni, Attorney General, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before Bell, C.j., Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O'brien and Roberts, JJ.

Author: Eagen

[ 412 Pa. Page 181]

OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE EAGEN

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Dauphin County court, which sustained the action of the Commonwealth's Board of Finance and Revenue in refusing a resettlement of the appellant's franchise tax account for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1959.

The facts were stipulated of record.

The appellant, The Interstate Amiesite Corporation, a Delaware corporation, has its principal place of business in Concordville, Delaware County, Pennsylvania. Its business activities include the production of bituminous paving material (asphalt). Part of this material is sold in plastic form to customers at its plant, and part is used by the corporation itself in road paving work as a sub or prime contractor.

For the year in question, the appellant sold 41.5% of its entire asphalt tonnage production to other persons, and used 58.5% thereof in its own road paving contracts. Sixty-five per cent of appellant's tangible property was employed in the production of the asphalt, and 68% of its gross receipts were derived from this activity.

In its franchise tax report, the appellant claimed that all of its activities, i.e., the production of asphalt

[ 412 Pa. Page 182]

    for sale to others, that used in its paving activities, as well as its road paving work, were all "manufacturing" for the purposes of the manufacturing exemption included in the Franchise Tax Act. In other words, that for this purpose the appellant's operation was ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.