Appeal from the Order of the Board of Finance and Revenue in case of In Re: Allison Engineering Company, Docket No. RST-82.
Leo M. Stepanian, for appellant.
Paul S. Roeder, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
President Judge Bowman and Judges Crumlish, Jr., Kramer, Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer, Rogers and Blatt. Opinion by President Judge Bowman.
[ 20 Pa. Commw. Page 624]
This de novo tax appeal from the order of the Board of Finance and Revenue sustaining the decision of the Sales Tax Board is before this Court on a stipulation of facts. These facts, which we adopt, reveal that appellant is and has been for over thirty years engaged in coal strip mining and processing operations in Pennsylvania.
In October of 1970, appellant purchased a helicopter, which it uses in its business for a variety of purposes. On February 26, 1973, the Bureau of Taxes for Education, conducted an audit of appellant's business and determined that appellant understated its use tax liability in the amount of $5,406.48 plus interest and penalties arising out of its purchase of the helicopter. Following the appropriate review procedures below, appellant has appealed to this Court, contending that the helicopter purchase was exempt from taxation because of its use "directly" in its mining operations.
At issue in this appeal is the interpretation of sections 201(o)(4)(B)(i) and 201(c)(3) of the Tax Reform Code of 1971*fn1 and Regulation 228 of the Department of Revenue.*fn2
[ 20 Pa. Commw. Page 625]
For the reasons hereinafter stated, we affirm the order of the Board.
Section 202(b) of the Code, 72 P.S. § 7202(b), imposes a use tax on the use of tangible personal property purchased at retail. Section 201(o)(4)(B)(i) provides that "use" shall not include --
"(B) The use . . . of tangible personal property, including but not limited to machinery and equipment and parts therefor . . . ...