Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County in case of City of Pittsburgh, a municipal corporation, and Joseph L. Cosetti, Treasurer v. Royston Services, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation, No. 1812 January, 1974.
Grace S. Harris, Executive Assistant City Solicitor, with her Mead J. Mulvihill, Jr., City Solicitor, for appellants.
Dennis J. Lewis, with him Robert B. Williams, and Eckert, Seamans, Cherin & Mellott, for appellee.
President Judge Bowman and Judges Crumlish, Jr., Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer, Rogers, Blatt and DiSalle. Opinion by President Judge Bowman.
[ 37 Pa. Commw. Page 395]
On December 28, 1968, pursuant to The Local Tax Enabling Act, Act of December 31, 1965, P.L. 1257, as amended, 53 P.S. § 6901 et seq., the City of Pittsburgh (City) enacted Ordinance No. 675, the "Business Privilege
[ 37 Pa. Commw. Page 396]
Tax Ordinance" (BPT), and Ordinance No. 676, "The Institution and Service Privilege Tax Ordinance" (ISPT). The effective date for both was February 1, 1969.
Respondent, Royston Service, Inc., began its operations in its present form on January 1, 1970, and is organized under Pennsylvania law as a corporation doing business for profit. Computer Systems Institute and the Art Institute of Pittsburgh are a subsidiary and a division of Royston respectively and provide educational services for which they charge fees.
The City commenced in the court below an action in assumpsit claiming deficiencies, penalties and interest under the BPT for the tax years 1971, 1972 and 1973. Royston counterclaimed for a refund, of taxes paid in those same years, purportedly under the ISPT. Royston argues that a 1970 amendment to the ISPT exempted it from said tax and further argues that both before 1970 and for the period in question it was also exempt from the BPT.*fn1
On December 3, 1976, the parties having agreed to submission on a stipulation of facts, the court below entered a verdict in favor of Royston on its counterclaim. Exceptions were filed, overruled except as to
[ 37 Pa. Commw. Page 397]
the amount of the verdict,*fn2 and this appeal by ...