Fargo Foundry Steel & Manufacturing Co. v. United States

415 F. Supp. 1362, 38 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 6338, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14129
CourtDistrict Court, D. North Dakota
DecidedJuly 14, 1976
DocketCiv. A3-75-28
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 415 F. Supp. 1362 (Fargo Foundry Steel & Manufacturing Co. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. North Dakota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Fargo Foundry Steel & Manufacturing Co. v. United States, 415 F. Supp. 1362, 38 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 6338, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14129 (D.N.D. 1976).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER

BENSON, Chief Judge.

Statement of The Case

This is a civil action against the United States for recovery of a manufacturer’s excise tax assessed and collected with interest for the period from the second quarter of 1968 through the third quarter of 1971. The United States contends the Field Service Unit manufactured by Plaintiff is a “part or accessory” within the meaning of 26 U.S.C. § 4061(b), and is subject to the 8 percent excise tax for the relevant period under that section. Jurisdiction is conferred on this §§ 1346 and 1402.

Facts

Fargo Foundry Steel & Manufacturing Company was the manufacturer and seller of a portable fuel tank called a Field Service Unit that was designed primarily to be placed unattached on the bed of a pick-up truck to haul fuel from either a bulk distributor or a farm storage tank to farm implements in the field for refueling. The tanks ranged in capacity from 70 gallons to 200 gallons, and were flat-bottomed containers with rounded tops that relied on their weight for stability. Each unit was equipped with handles to facilitate portability and the units were not intended to be attached to the vehicle at any time. Fargo Foundry also offered pumps, hoses, and nozzles for the Field Service Units if desired by the purchaser, but these were not consistently sold as a part of each unit, nor were they installed by Plaintiff on any tank sold. The unit was designed primarily to provide the farmer with a more convenient and economical means to refuel farm equipment during the planting and harvesting seasons. Thus, it was used for the purpose for which it was primarily designed for periods of only short duration during the spring and fall. When not in use for its primary purpose, the unit was usually removed from the truck and could be used as an on-the-farm fuel storage tank. The units could be used by coritractors to haul fuel over the highway to refuel construction equipment at job sites, but this was not the use for which they were primarily intended.

The principal market for the units was the Farmers’ Union Central Exchange, which sold them to farmers. Prior to the development of the Field Service Unit, farmers generally used 55 gallon drums with spigots to transport fuel to the field. The Field Service Unit was essentially a convenient substitute for the unwieldy 55 gallon drums. Like the outdated drums, the Units were inextricably necessary for the transportation of fuel from the farm to the field. They were not intended to haul feed, seed or fertilizer.

*1364 In 1970, the Internal Revenue Service initiated an audit of Fargo Foundry. During the audit, the tax official requested advice from the national office pertaining to the application of the excise tax to the Field Service Unit. A technical advice memorandum was issued holding that the units were subject to the manufacturer’s excise tax as “parts or accessories”. Fargo Foundry did not attempt to obtain a Ruling from the Internal Revenue Service on the tax status of the Field Service Units. Quarterly assessments of excise taxes were levied for the period from the second quarter of 1968, through the third quarter of -1971, inclusive, which assessments, with interest, were paid by the Plaintiff under protest on December 29, 1971, in the total amount of $12,917.48. A timely claim for refund was thereafter filed and disallowed. Manufacture and sale of the Field Service Unit terminated in 1973.

Conclusions

On the facts, the Court concludes the Field Service Units were primarily used in connection with vehicles named in § 4061(a), but that they were in effect the load being transported and had a primary function to serve a purpose unrelated to the vehicle as such. Accordingly, the Field Service Units were not “parts or accessories” within the meaning of 26 U.S.C. § 4061(b), and the Plaintiff is entitled to a refund of taxes and interest paid.

Rationale

The manufacturéis excise tax was assessed pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 4061, which provided in pertinent part:

“(a) Automobiles. — There is hereby imposed upon the following articles (including in each case parts or accessories therefor sold on or in connection therewith or with the sale thereof) sold by the manufacturer, producer, or importer a tax equivalent to the specified percent of the price for which so sold:
(1)Articles taxable at 10 percent, except that on and after October 1, 1972, the rate shall be 5 percent—
Automobile truck chassis.
Automobile truck bodies.
Automobile bus chassis.
Automobile bus bodies.
Truck and bus trailer and semitrailer chassis.
Truck and bus trailer and semitrailer bodies.
Tractors of the kind chiefly used for highway transportation in combination with a trailer or semitrailer.
A sale of an automobile truck, bus, truck or bus trailer or semitrailer shall, for the purposes of this paragraph, be considered to be a sale of a chassis and of a body enumerated in this paragraph.
* * * * * *
(b) Parts and accessories.—
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), there is hereby imposed upon parts or accessories (other than tires and inner tubes) for any of the articles enumerated in subsection (a)(1) sold by the manufacturer, producer, or importer a tax equivalent to 8 percent of the price for which so sold, except that on and after October 1, 1972, the rate shall be 5 percent.” 1

The United States contended the Field Service Unit was a “part or accessory” under § 4061(b). Treas.Reg. § 48.4061(b)-2 provides:

“Definition of parts or accessories.
(a) In general. The term ‘parts or accessories’ includes (1) any article the primary use of which is to improve, repair, replace, or serve as a component part of an automobile truck or bus chassis or body, or other automobile chassis or body, or taxable tractor, (2) any article designed to be attached to or used in connection with such chassis, body, or tractor to add to its utility or ornamentation, and (3) any article the primary use of which is in connection with such chassis, body or *1365 tractor, whether or not essential to its operation or use. The term ‘parts or accessories’ includes all articles which have reached such a stage of manufacture as to be commonly known as parts or accessories whether or not fitting operations are required in connection with their installation.

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

Related

Keasler v. United States
585 F. Supp. 825 (E.D. Arkansas, 1984)
Storall Manufacturing Co. v. United States
585 F. Supp. 785 (E.D. Arkansas, 1984)
Myers v. United States
468 F. Supp. 359 (N.D. Texas, 1979)
O'Day Equipment, Inc. v. United States
454 F. Supp. 444 (D. North Dakota, 1978)
Fargo Foundry Steel & Mfg. v. United States
553 F.2d 103 (Eighth Circuit, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
415 F. Supp. 1362, 38 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 6338, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14129, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fargo-foundry-steel-manufacturing-co-v-united-states-ndd-1976.