Fedway Associates, Inc. v. Director

14 N.J. Tax 71
CourtNew Jersey Tax Court
DecidedJune 1, 1994
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 14 N.J. Tax 71 (Fedway Associates, Inc. v. Director) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Tax Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Fedway Associates, Inc. v. Director, 14 N.J. Tax 71 (N.J. Super. Ct. 1994).

Opinion

LASSER, P.J.T.C.

Taxpayer, Fedway Associates, Inc. (Fedway), contests a use tax deficiency assessment imposed by the Director of the Division of Taxation (Director) on certain purchases of tangible personal property for distribution to Fedway’s salespersons as either compensation or sales promotions. Director determined that the purchases were subject to use tax pursuant to N.J.S.A 54:32B-1 to 27. Fedway contends that the assessment is improper because the purchases are exempt from sales or use tax pursuant to the New Jersey Urban Enterprise Zones Act (Act) N.J.S.A 52:27H-60 to 97.

A trial was held on the factual and legal issues.

Fedway, a New Jersey Corporation, is a wholesale distributor of wines and alcoholic spirits. Fedway has two New Jersey locations: Building #56, River Terminal Development, Hackensack Avenue, Kearny, which includes its corporate offices and principal warehouse, and 1 Central Avenue, Mount Laurel, a satellite distribution facility. Fedway’s Kearny location acts as a distribution center for four subsidiaries: Gateway Distributors, Inc., Perrone Wine & Spirits, Inc., Allstate Wines and Spirits and Jersey National Liquor Company.

Fedway was issued an “Urban Enterprise Exempt Purchase Permit” (Permit) for its Kearny location, by the Division of Taxation, for the period April 22, 1988 through and beyond the date of Director’s final determination of deficiency assessment. The Permit exempts Fedway’s Kearny location from use tax on purchases of tangible personal property which are to be consumed solely and exclusively by Fedway within the enterprise zone. The application for this exemption included the employees of its subsidiaries, but its subsidiaries do not have an Urban Enterprise Zone exemption. Director does not contest the validity of Fed-way’s Permit, only that the subject items must be exclusively used [61]*61by Fedway in the enterprise zone to be exempt from use tax under the Act.

Fedway markets the products it distributes through salespersons employed by its subsidiaries. As part of its sales efforts, and in accordance with industry practice, Fedway purchases certain items for the Kearny location which are distributed to salespersons at the Kearny warehouse as either compensation or marketing aids. These Purchases range from corkscrews, napkins and calendars to golf bags, compact disk players and television sets. Items purchased for sales promotion may carry labels of alcoholic beverage companies or their products distributed by Fedway.

Fedway asserts that its salespersons may either give the subject items to their customers or retain them for their own use. Fedway treats as employee compensation, and lists on employee Federal Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Forms W-2, large items which cany no brand name or product logo.

On April 14, 1990, Taxpayer was sent a “Notice of Assessment and Demand for Payment” for use tax on the subject purchased items. On July 19, 1991, Taxpayer was issued a “Final Determination” of use tax in the amount of $93,736.98 plus penalties and interest.

Fedway contends that the subject purchases are exempt from use tax under the Act. Fedway argues that the items are “materials and supplies” which are expensed, not capitalized, and consumed within the Kearny enterprise zone at the time they are picked up by salespersons at the Kearny facility. Taxpayer’s contention is based on the premise that once distributed, Fedway relinquishes all control of the items causing them to have no remaining economic value to Fedway.

Further, Fedway asserts that distribution of subject items, as either compensation or sales promotions, encourages sales and enables Fedway to expand its employee base. Taxpayer argues that increasing employment within the Urban Enterprise Zone is one of the Act’s goals. It contends that these items should be [62]*62exempt from use tax because their distribution fosters expansion of Fedway’s work force in the enterprise zone.

Director argues that distribution of the goods to salespersons is not exclusive use or consumption by Fedway in the enterprise zone. Director asserts that consumption occurs only when the goods are used for the purposes for which they were intended. Director claims that distribution to employees is not a use of these goods for the purpose for which they were intended. Director maintains that the items must be totally used up in the enterprise zone; for example, supplies, such as cleaning products, used in the maintenance of the Kearny facility are exclusively used and consumed wholly within the enterprise zone.

I

The Act was intended to stimulate economic activity in certain areas of economic distress. These areas, designated “Urban Enterprise Zones,” are “characterized by high unemployment, low investment of new capital, blighted conditions, obsolete or abandoned industrial or commercial structures, and deteriorating tax bases.” N.J.S.A. 52:27H-61(a).

To attract and maintain businesses in these areas, the Act provides certain incentives. These include reduced sales tax on sales made from the enterprise zone and exemption from sales and use tax on certain purchases of property and services used within the zone. Specifically, N.J.S.A 52:27H-79 provides use tax exemption for:

Retail sales of tangible personal property (except motor vehicles) and sales of services (except telecommunications) to a qualified business for the exclusive use or consumption of such business within an enterprise zone are exempt from the taxes imposed under the “Sales and Use Tax Act,” [citations omitted].

II

The issue in this ease is limited to whether the subject purchases are exclusively used or consumed in the enterprise zone and hence, exempt from use tax under the Act.

[63]*63The party claiming exemption has the burden of justifying that it clearly qualifies for an exemption and when construing the exemption statute, “all doubts are resolved against those seeking the benefit____” Teaneck Tp. v. Lutheran Bible Institute, 20 N.J. 86, 90, 118 A.2d 809 (1955).

The subject purchases fall into two categories, tangible personal property provided to employees as (1) employee compensation or (2) sales promotion items. Items which are employee compensation are those for which an IRS Form W-2 is issued to the employee and filed to report the distribution to the salesperson. All other items are sales promotion items intended for distribution to customers.

Tangible personal property is exempt from tax on purchase when the property is for the exclusive use of the qualified business and is consumed by the qualified business in the enterprise zone. The regulations of the Director indicate the nature of the exempt enterprise zone personal property. N.J.AC. 18:24-31.3(b) identifies exempt property and services as:

(b) Tangible personal property includes items such as office supplies, office or business equipment, office and store furnishings, trade fixtures, cash registers, etc. Services include items such as installing, maintaining or repairing tangible personal property used in business (other than a motor vehicle); maintaining, servicing or repairing real property used in business, and advertising services.

N.J AC.

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

Related

NFF Construction, Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxation
27 N.J. Tax 1 (New Jersey Tax Court, 2012)
Fedway Associates Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxation
659 A.2d 536 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1995)
Black Whale, Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxation
15 N.J. Tax 338 (New Jersey Tax Court, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
14 N.J. Tax 71, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fedway-associates-inc-v-director-njtaxct-1994.