Matter of N.Y. World-Telegram Corp. v. McGoldrick

80 N.E.2d 61, 298 N.Y. 11, 1948 N.Y. LEXIS 829
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedMay 21, 1948
StatusPublished
Cited by26 cases

This text of 80 N.E.2d 61 (Matter of N.Y. World-Telegram Corp. 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 N.Y. World-Telegram Corp. v. McGoldrick, 80 N.E.2d 61, 298 N.Y. 11, 1948 N.Y. LEXIS 829 (N.Y. 1948).

Opinions

Thacher, J.

In January, 1931, the organization became interested in acquiring the New York World and the New York Telegram and this was accomplished by acquiring through various corporations the names, good will and intangible assets of the morning and evening World and all the assets, tangible and intangible, of the Nevo York Telegram. As the result of various changes of corporate names and intercorporate transactions the properties were vested in two companies: World-Telegram Building and Equipment Corporation (which will be referred to as the Equipment Company) and New York World-Telegram Corporation (which will be referred to as the Publishing Company).

The Equipment Company had acquired possession of the premises at the northeasterly corner of West and Barclay Streets under lease from Ehinelander Real Estate Company and was obligated to pay the rentals reserved in the lease. It had acquired all of the equipment used in the business of publishing the New York World-Telegram from the Publishing Company, for which it had given its 6% notes to the Publishing Company to cover the cost of the equipment. The Equipment Company had also borrowed from the Publishing Company sums required for rent under the Ehinelander lease and additional sums to meet the building costs of a new ten-story building, which were also evidenced by its 6% notes.

The purpose of thus vesting all of the physical property in the Equipment Company, which was not engaged in the conduct of the newspapers, was to make available as security for an issue of preferred stock assets costing some three and a half million dollars plus the obligations of the Publishing Company as lessee of the building and equipment. Accordingly, the Equipment Company entered into a lease of the real estate and all of the equipment to the Publishing Company, which owned all of its stock. This lease was executed as of October 1, 1931.

There was no sales tax in the city of New York when these transactions occurred. Pursuant to the enabling act (L. 1934, ch. 873), both branches of the municipal assembly of the Gitj *16

The law itself and the comptroller’s regulations disclose the legislative purpose to exclude such sales. The law (§ 2) imposed a tax of 2% upon the amount of the receipts from every taxable sale in the city of New York for the period beginning December 10, 1934, to and including December 31, 1935, and it was provided (Local Laws, 193.4, No. 24 of City of New York [published as No. 25], p. 167): “ The tax imposed by this local law shall be paid upon all sales made and services rendered on and after December tenth, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, although made or rendered under a contract dated prior to December tenth, nineteen hundred and thirty-four. * * * The comptroller may provide by regulation that the tax upon receipts from sales on the installment plan may be paid on the amount of each installment and upon the date when such installment is due.”

The word “ sale ” or “ selling ” was defined in subdivision (e) of section 1, as follows (Local Laws, 1934, p. 165): (e) The word sale ’ or ‘ selling ’ means any transfer of title or possession or both, exchange or barter, license to use or *17 consume, conditional or otherwise, in any manner or by any means whatsoever for a consideration, or any agreement therefor, and may include the rendering of any service specified in section two of this local law

Subdivision (a) of section 11 of Local Law No. 20, as amended (published as No. 21), authorized and empowered the comptroller to make, adopt and amend rules and regulations appropriate to the carrying out of this local law and the purposes thereof, and on February 11,1935, the comptroller promulgated the official regulations provided for in subdivision (a) of section 11 (N. Y. City Sales Tax Eules and Eegulations —1935). Among other problems, the comptroller’s regulation^ dealt with the taxability of receipts from sales made before December 10, 1934, and in this connection provided:

“ Article 29.— The tax is imposed upon the receipts of every sale of tangible personal property (except such property as is specifically exempted therefrom) at retail in the city of New York on and after December 10, 1934. * * *
“ Where tangible personal property was sold and delivered to the purchaser thereof prior to December 10, 1934, no tax is imposed upon the amount of the receipts therefrom even though all or any part of the purchase price was paid after December 10, 1934.
“ Where a contract for the sale of tangible personal property was made prior to December 10, 1934, and such property was sold to the purchaser on and after December 10, 1934, the purchaser is required to pay the- tax to his vendor on the total selling price thereof. If at the time the contract was made, the purchaser made a down payment, he is required to pay the tax on the unpaid balance due on and after December 10, 1934.
Where tangible personal property was sold on the installment plan and delivered to the purchaser before December 10, 1934, the tax does not apply to the receipts therefrom even though payment therefor is made on and after December 10, 1934.”

The incidence of the tax is sale after December 10,1934. The statute and the regulations leave no doubt that sales made before its effective date are not to be taxed. By express statutory definition conditional sales are sales within the meaning of the statute. Therefore, a conditional sale of tangible per *18 sonal property is not taxable if tbe goods were delivered to tbe conditional vendee before tbe tax became' effective. All of tbe tangible personal property was delivered to tbe appellant under tbe agreement on or about October 1, 1931. If that delivery was upon a contract of conditional sale or upon an unconditional obligation to pay for it in installments, tbe comptroller’s assessments are without validity.

Tbe agreement is cast in tbe form, style and language of a lease, but we must look to tbe rights it confers and tbe obligations it imposes to determine whether it has tbe essential attributes of a contract of conditional sale or of an installment sale (Central Union Gas Co. v. Browning, 210 N. Y. 10). If tbe conditional vendee has possession of tbe chattel, is obligated to pay for it and, having paid, becomes or has an option to become tbe owner of it, tbe vendor retaining tbe right to retake tbe goods if tbe conditional vendee defaults in bis obligation to pay for them, there is a conditional sale (Central Union Gas Co. v. Browning, supra; Gardner v. Town of Cameron, 155 App. Div. 750, affd. 215 N. Y. 682; Ohl & Co. v. Standard Steel Sections, Inc., 179 App. Div. 637; Equitable General Providing Co. v. Eisentrager, 34 Misc. 179).

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

Related

Conners v. Town of Colonie
108 A.D.3d 837 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Sutton Hill Associates v. Landes
705 F. Supp. 940 (S.D. New York, 1989)
Peat Marwick Main & Co. v. New York City Department of Finance
139 Misc. 2d 1093 (New York Supreme Court, 1988)
Allstate Insurance v. Chia-I Lung
131 Misc. 2d 586 (New York Supreme Court, 1986)
Great Lakes-Dunbar-Rochester v. State Tax Commission
102 A.D.2d 1 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)
Dime Laundry Service, Inc. v. 230 Apartments Corp.
120 Misc. 2d 399 (New York Supreme Court, 1983)
Dubay v. Trans-America Insurance
75 A.D.2d 312 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1980)
Albion Industrial Center v. Town of Albion
62 A.D.2d 478 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1978)
Quigley v. Capolongo
53 A.D.2d 714 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)
Granite Auto Leasing Corp. v. Jeff-Mar Bus Leasing Corp.
44 A.D.2d 553 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1974)
Heisler v. Halberstam
74 Misc. 2d 394 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1973)
Xerox Corp. v. Smith
67 Misc. 2d 752 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1971)
Ja-Mo Associates, Inc. v. 56 Fulton St. Garage Corp.
30 A.D.2d 287 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1968)
In re Merkel, Inc.
46 Misc. 2d 270 (New York Supreme Court, 1965)
In re Merkel, Inc. Monarch Marking System Co.
45 Misc. 2d 753 (New York Supreme Court, 1965)
Canadair Ltd. v. Seaboard World Airlines, Inc.
43 Misc. 2d 320 (New York Supreme Court, 1964)
Feder v. Caliguira
171 N.E.2d 316 (New York Court of Appeals, 1960)
Prudential Westchester Corp. v. Tomasino
5 A.D.2d 489 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1958)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
80 N.E.2d 61, 298 N.Y. 11, 1948 N.Y. LEXIS 829, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-ny-world-telegram-corp-v-mcgoldrick-ny-1948.