Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. State Board of Equalization

281 P.2d 99, 131 Cal. App. 2d 677, 1955 Cal. App. LEXIS 2109
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal
DecidedMarch 21, 1955
DocketCiv. No. 20547
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 281 P.2d 99 (Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. State Board of Equalization) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. State Board of Equalization, 281 P.2d 99, 131 Cal. App. 2d 677, 1955 Cal. App. LEXIS 2109 (Cal. Ct. App. 1955).

Opinion

MOORE, P. J.

Appellant is a Kansas corporation. It operates an immense railway system through many states with terminals and repair shops at Barstow and San Bernardino, in California. Only a comparatively short stretch of its track in Iowa and Illinois is designed and equipped for the purpose of operating automatic control equipment which is installed upon the locomotive for the purpose of signalling the engineer and controlling the speed. The parts constituting such equipment include loop and track receivers, each weighing 200 pounds; the equipment box, weighing 300 pounds; the steel cab signal, a fixture inside the locomotive cab; governor, and steel cutoff switch. Each of such parts is so installed in the locomotive as to become an integrated part thereof.

In 1950 and 1951, the Union Switch and Signal Company of Swissvale, Pennsylvania, sold at retail to appellant certain train control equipment repair parts for $68,086.11 for the express purpose of bringing them to San Bernardino and Barstow for storage until installed permanently on appellant’s locomotives. At that time, it was the practice of appellant to maintain a 90-day supply of such repair parts on hand, in the California cities. During the same two-year period (1950-1951) the parts so stored in California were integrated by appellant into the automatic train control equipment on its locomotives and thereby became permanent parts of such locomotives although such equipment functions only when the locomotive moves upon the limited mileage that is equipped for its use in controlling the speed. Such equipment is not used on locomotives operating solely in California.

The Issues

In making returns to respondent for sales and use taxes for the two years, appellant inadvertently included the purchase of the above described repair parts and paid taxes thereon in the sum of $2,042.58. A demand for refund of the tax was duly made. Having exhausted all administrative remedies, appellant instituted this action on the grounds that [679]*679(1) the use of the repair parts on locomotives operating in interstate commerce is not subject to the use tax; (2) section 6009.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code exempts temporary-storage and installation of the repair parts from the use tax; (3) the parts were not purchased for use in California, which use is a necessary element to the application of the use tax; (4) the philosophy of the Use Tax Act will not be fostered by applying the tax in this case.

Respondents contend, on the contrary, that (1) nonuse of the equipment in California is immaterial; (2) it was stored in California and was used to make repairs in this state; (3) section 6009.1, supra, is not applicable as a statute pertaining only to property used “thereafter out of the state,” it being conceded that the trains return to California. The decision of whether the tax was properly chargeable depends upon whether the equipment is a permanent part of the locomotive. If it is not, there is no use in California, hence no use tax. The finding is that the equipment is a permanent part of the locomotive repaired, although it was stipulated that the use of train control repair parts on locomotives operating in interstate commerce is not subject to the use tax. Therefore, this discussion will be confined to the application of the use tax as it applies to the storage and installation of the parts in California prior to the movement of the repaired locomotives in interstate commerce.

The Statutes on Use Tax

Four statutes play an important role. They are sections 6008, 6009, 6009.1 and 6201 as they appeared in the Revenue and Taxation

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Board of Equalization
86 Cal. Rptr. 2d 362 (California Court of Appeal, 1999)
Engs Motor Truck Co. v. State Board of Equalization
189 Cal. App. 3d 1458 (California Court of Appeal, 1987)
H. J. Heinz Co. v. State Board of Equalization
209 Cal. App. 2d 1 (California Court of Appeal, 1962)
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. State Board of Equalization
294 P.2d 181 (California Court of Appeal, 1956)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
281 P.2d 99, 131 Cal. App. 2d 677, 1955 Cal. App. LEXIS 2109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atchison-topeka-santa-fe-railway-co-v-state-board-of-equalization-calctapp-1955.