Matter of Good Humor Corporation v. McGoldrick

46 N.E.2d 881, 289 N.Y. 452, 1943 N.Y. LEXIS 1168
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedJanuary 14, 1943
StatusPublished
Cited by36 cases

This text of 46 N.E.2d 881 (Matter of Good Humor Corporation v. McGoldrick) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Matter of Good Humor Corporation v. McGoldrick, 46 N.E.2d 881, 289 N.Y. 452, 1943 N.Y. LEXIS 1168 (N.Y. 1943).

Opinion

Lehman, Ch. J.

In 1937 and 1938, the petitioner Good Humor Corporation was engaged in the business of selling at retail certain products known as Good Humor sticks,” “ sundae cups,” and “ water ice cups.” The Comptroller of the city of New York has determined that Local Laws 31 of 1936 and 20 of 1937 and 21 of 1938 impose a sales tax of two per cent upon the receipts from the sale of these products in the city of New York. In a proceeding brought by the petitioner to review this determination, the Appellate Division has confirmed the determination.

*454 Local laws in effect in 1937 and 1938 imposed a tax upon the receipts from every sale in the city of New York, as follows:

“ (a) .Tangible personal property sold at retail, except those articles described in Schedule ‘ A ’ below: *******
SCHEDULE A
Cereals and cereal products;
Milk and milk products, other than candy and confectionery;
Meat and meat.products;
Fish and fish products;
Egg and egg products;
Vegetables and vegetable products;
Fruits, spices and salt;
Sugar and sugar products, other than candy and confectionery;
Coffee and coffee substitutes; beer or other similar malt beverages; tea, cocoa and cocoa products, other than candy and confectionery;
Water, when delivered to the consumer through mains and pipes;
Drugs and medicines sold upon a physician’s prescription;
Newspapers and periodicals.”

The words “ other than candy and confectionery ” after “ Milk and milk products ” were added only in July, 1938, by Local Law 21 of 1938. For the purposes of this appeal we assume without further consideration that the amendment of Schedule A in 1938 merely expressed a qualification or limitation which previously was clearly implied and made no change in the scope of the taxing statute.

Upon that assumption the products of the petitioner are subject to the tax if they come within the classification of “ candy and confectionery.” Otherwise they are “milk products” or “sugar products ” which are not subject to tax. “ Good Humor sticks ” are calces of ice cream with a coating of chocolate about one sixty-fourth of an inch thick. A stick is inserted to hold the product. Ice Cream sundaes consist of ice cream with a “ topping ” of flavored syrup. Water ice is made principally of sugar and water. The classification of “ candy and confectionery ” cannot be exactly defined. Coneededly it covers, a wide variety of articles usually made and sold in the “ confectionery ” business. Confectioners usually *455 made and sell ice cream, water ices, sugar-coated cakes and other articles which are also made in the home or in bakeshops, and which are sold perhaps as much in other places of business as in confectionery shops. For some purposes such articles might be classified as candy or confectionery, not for all. The line it is said must be drawn somewhere, and the Comptroller has chosen to draw the fine between ice cream without a chocolate coating and ice cream with “ Good Humor ” coating or “ Good Humor ” sundae.

The determination of what articles or transactions are taxable is a legislative function. It is not the function of an administrative officer to determine where the line shall be drawn which divides the- field subject to taxation from the field where no tax has been imposed. That line must be drawn by statute or ordinance. The tax authorities have power only to determine whether an article comes within the field selected in the ordinance for taxation. Where the facts are not disputed, the question whether a particular article falls within that field is a question of law.

This court has .said that “ A statute which levies a tax is to be construed most strongly against the government and in favor of the citizen. The government takes nothing except what is given by the clear import of the words used, and a well-founded doubt as to the meaning of the act defeats the tax.” (People ex rel. Mutual Trust Co. v. Miller, 177 N. Y. 51; People ex rel. New York M. & N. T. Co. v. Gaus, 198 N. Y. 250.) That well-established rule applies in this case. It is not quite accurate to say that articles enumerated in Schedule A have been “ exempted ” from the general sales tax. Rather it is true that the field selected for the tax law does not cover the articles enumerated in Schedule A. The products of Good Humor Corporation are, it is clear, “ milk products ” and sugar products,” and only by giving a very broad construction of doubtful validity to the limitation “ other than candy and confectionery ” can these products be included in the limitation so described.

For these reasons the ofder of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the determination of the respondent .annulled, with costs in this court and in the Appellate Division.

Loughran, Fin£h, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmo'nd, JJ., concur.

Order reversed, etc.

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

Related

Debevoise & Plimpton v. New York State Department of Taxation & Finance
609 N.E.2d 514 (New York Court of Appeals, 1993)
In re Ally & Gargano, Inc. v. Biderman
126 A.D.2d 354 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
Brooklyn Union Gas Co. v. Commissioner of Department of Finance
108 A.D.2d 74 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
Cissley v. New York State Tax Commission
98 A.D.2d 899 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)
Mobil Oil Corp. v. Finance Administrator
446 N.E.2d 130 (New York Court of Appeals, 1983)
Overseas National Airways, Inc. v. State Tax Commission
91 A.D.2d 162 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)
Koner v. Procaccino
347 N.E.2d 658 (New York Court of Appeals, 1976)
Devine v. County of Suffolk
71 Misc. 2d 883 (New York Supreme Court, 1972)
Bathrick Enterprises, Inc. v. Murphy
27 A.D.2d 215 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1967)
City of Lackawanna v. State Board of Equalization & Assessment
212 N.E.2d 42 (New York Court of Appeals, 1965)
Empire State Building Corp. v. City of New York
46 Misc. 2d 461 (New York Supreme Court, 1965)
In re the Estate of Singer
37 Misc. 2d 400 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1962)
Young v. Gerosa
11 A.D.2d 67 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1960)
In re the Estate of Van Etten
22 Misc. 2d 182 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1960)
Roosevelt Raceway, Inc. v. Bedell
24 Misc. 2d 374 (New York Supreme Court, 1960)
Realty Equities Corp. v. Gerosa
22 Misc. 2d 817 (New York Supreme Court, 1959)
Allied Chemical Corp v. Kowal
9 A.D.2d 121 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1959)
People v. Reilly
20 Misc. 2d 139 (New York Court of Special Session, 1959)
Metropolitan Convoy Corp. v. City of New York
141 N.E.2d 550 (New York Court of Appeals, 1957)
Hoffman v. City of Syracuse
141 N.E.2d 605 (New York Court of Appeals, 1957)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
46 N.E.2d 881, 289 N.Y. 452, 1943 N.Y. LEXIS 1168, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-good-humor-corporation-v-mcgoldrick-ny-1943.