Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County in case of Ivy School of Professional Art, Inc. v. City of Pittsburgh and Joseph L. Cosetti, Treasurer, No. SA83-1976.
Grace S. Harris, Executive Assistant City Solicitor, with her Mead J. Mulvihill, Jr., City Solicitor, for appellants.
Emil W. Herman, with him Thomas R. Solomich, and Rothman, Gordon, Foreman and Groudine, PA, 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 407]
Ivy School of Professional Art, Inc. (Ivy) is a corporation organized under Pennsylvania law as a corporation for profit engaged in the business of operating a school for the teaching of art, photography and related subjects.
From 1970 through 1975, Ivy paid taxes to the City of Pittsburgh (City) on its gross receipts, excluding
[ 37 Pa. Commw. Page 408]
therefrom State and Federal funds attributable to a variety of aid programs, which funds were received for and credited to the accounts of individual students. The City contends that for those years Ivy was liable for the City's Business Privilege Tax (BPT), that the taxes were paid pursuant to the BPT, and that under the BPT, said exclusions were improper. Ivy counters that it was liable in 1970 only for the City's Institution and Service Privilege Tax (ISPT), that for the years 1971-1975 it was liable for neither, and that under the ISPT said exclusions were lawful.
In 1975, the City Treasurer disallowed said exclusions and assessed additional taxes under the BPT.
From this assessment and the City Treasurer's denial of a hearing, Ivy filed in the court below a "Petition for Appeal from Assessment of Business Privilege Taxes." The court below consolidated these proceedings with City of Pittsburgh v. Royston Service, Inc., 37 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 394, A.2d (1978).
After hearing on stipulations of facts and the submission of briefs, the court below issued an order consistent with its order in Royston, supra, holding that from 1971, Ivy was liable for neither the BPT nor the ISPT, that for the year 1971, it was liable for ISPT and that the ISPT excluded from gross receipts payments made by the State and Federal governments.
In Royston, supra, we concluded that simultaneous amendments to both the BPT and ISPT effective January 1, 1971, did not produce the result of excluding educational institutions organized for profit from taxation under both taxing ordinances but rather subjected them to taxation under the BPT for the reason they were no longer subject to the ...