McNamara v. Inc.

389 So. 2d 741
CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal
DecidedSeptember 22, 1980
Docket14267
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 389 So. 2d 741 (McNamara v. Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
McNamara v. Inc., 389 So. 2d 741 (La. Ct. App. 1980).

Opinion

389 So.2d 741 (1980)

Shirley McNAMARA, Secretary, Department of Revenue and Taxation, State of Louisiana, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
U. O. P., INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 14267.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

September 22, 1980.
Rehearing Denied October 30, 1980.

*743 Raymond L. Simmons, Baton Rouge, for plaintiff-appellant.

Blanchard, Walker, O'Quin & Roberts by J. Edgerton Pierson, Jr. and William Paul Lawrence, II, Shreveport, for defendant-appellee.

Before HALL, MARVIN and FRED W. JONES, JJ.

En Banc. Rehearing Denied October 30, 1980.

*744 MARVIN, Judge.

In this appeal we determine what sales and use taxes, if any, are owed the State for several million dollars worth of precious metals which are combined with other materials by a manufacturer in Louisiana to create catalysts that are used worldwide by petroleum refineries to produce high octane fuel. L.R.S. 47:301 et seq.

The refining process, known as catalytic reforming, is licensed to refiners by UOP under the name of plat forming. Platinum is the primary and most expensive of the metals which are combined with an aluminum oxide base to create catalysts. Some catalysts also contain either or both the less expensive precious metals, rhenium and octenite. Octenite is a trade or code name for a metal or metallic compound, the composition of which is a trade secret.

Platinum comprises only about 1/20 of the catalyst but costs from 7 to 20 times more than the other materials in the catalyst. Rhenium and octenite are much less expensive metals and when used in the catalysts, their cost is approximately equal to the cost of the other material, excluding platinum. Platinum producers sold a troy ounce of platinum for about $22 in 1958 and for about $380 in November 1979. At all times the spot market price was from 10 to 40 percent higher. The period during which the State audited the defendant manufacturer, UOP, was 1972 through 1974. The average cost of platinum during the three-year period was $148 per ounce. For clarity, we discuss the circumstances as if platinum were the only precious metal contained in the catalysts.

The catalyst is not consumed in the refining process, but loses its effectiveness in about three years. Spent catalyst is returned by the refiner to the manufacturer in Louisiana where about 99 percent of the platinum is recovered. UOP charges a per-pound recovery charge to its customers. The recovered platinum is then combined with new material and is made into fresh catalyst.

When the price of platinum was stable and relatively low, UOP owned more than 100,000 troy ounces which it used as any other raw material. The price of the catalyst charged the customer included the platinum in the catalyst. When the price of platinum soared in the 1960s, UOP succeeded in shifting the market risk of the platinum to each of its customers who became contractually obligated either to supply to UOP, or to authorize UOP to purchase for the customer's credit, the precious metal needed to produce catalyst to supply that customer's demand. UOP purchases platinum from producers for the account of each of its customers. A customer may direct UOP to sell platinum credited to that customer's account. The customer pays UOP a $1.50 per ounce service charge when UOP sells or purchases platinum for that customer.

UOP maintains extensive records which project the demand for its catalyst. Each customer has a stock account which is debited or credited as the circumstances require when new metal is acquired or sold for the customer and when metal is either delivered in fresh catalyst to, or is recovered from spent catalyst returned by, the customer.

If there is a deficit in a customer's platinum stock account, UOP charges a rent or lease charge (called a turnaround charge) to that customer for platinum contained in the catalyst shipped to that customer until such time as that customer fulfills its contractual obligation to supply the precious metal to UOP. The deficit is usually satisfied by the return of spent catalyst to UOP by the customer. Larger UOP customers such as Shell and Texaco usually have a credit in their platinum stock accounts while smaller refiners sometimes have a deficit. The turnaround (rent) charge for the platinum ($4.50 per ounce, raised to $5.50 in 1974) is for 35 days. If the customer's account still shows a deficit after this period, a percentage of the turnaround charge is imposed daily until the customer makes up the deficit either by the return of spent catalyst or by authorizing UOP to purchase for its account, new platinum. If the deficit exists for 90 days, UOP is empowered by the contract to purchase new platinum and to charge the customer.

*745 The number of ounces involved in turnaround charges during the audit period averaged slightly more than 50,000 ounces a year. One percent of this amount (500 ounces a year) is lost in the recovery process. UOP purchases more than 500 ounces of platinum each year because of customer demand and to avoid eventual depletion of the platinum available to UOP for the manufacture of catalysts.

During the audit period, UOP acquired for 44 customers about 91,000 troy ounces of platinum at an average cost of about $150 per ounce ($13,650,000 value). For manufacturing and reprocessing purposes, UOP considers that it "owns" all of the platinum subject to the "drawing rights" of its customers with platinum stock account credit balances. We deduce from this record that UOP received each year of the audit period at its Louisiana plant spent catalyst containing about 120,000 ounces of platinum, about 50,000 ounces of which was credited to UOP's own platinum account. We estimate that approximately 1,200 ounces (one percent) was lost in the recovery process.

Ownership of the platinum is reflected by the accounting records at the UOP home office in Illinois and it is not possible to identify any quantity of platinum as being "owned" by a particular customer until fresh catalyst is labeled for shipment or spent catalyst is received from a customer by UOP. The platinum at UOP's disposal is in Louisiana, in Illinois, and in new platinum stock accounts of suppliers who are primarily located in New Jersey. The great bulk of the platinum at UOP's disposal is physically contained in the fresh or spent catalyst and in chloroplatinic acid which is used to make the catalysts. All UOP platforming catalysts are made and recycled in the Louisiana plant while chloroplatinic acid is made outside Louisiana. A customer's order for catalyst is usually filled in Louisiana and is shipped by rail and other common carrier throughout the world.

In our composite illustration of the several transactions in question, C, the UOP customer, is a refinery outside Louisiana, with a credit balance in its platinum stock account of only 50 ounces. C orders 20,000 lbs. of fresh catalyst and eventually returns 16,000 lbs. of catalyst. C's platinum stock account is adjusted and the deficit is eventually satisfied by UOP purchasing, for C, new platinum. Drum deposit charges, turnaround charges, recovery charges, and a per-ounce service charge on the purchase of new platinum are illustrated in the composite invoice:

1/ 1/73   (Balance in C's platinum stock account:
          50 oz.)
          20,000 lbs. catalyst shipped at
          $3.00 per pound                                  $60,000.00
          Platinum turnaround charge on
          950 oz. at $4.50                                   4,275.00
          (1,000 oz. platinum, less credit of
          50 oz. 

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

Related

New Orleans Fire Fighters Pension & Relief Fund v. City of New Orleans
242 So. 3d 682 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2018)
R & B Falcon Drilling USA, Inc. v. Secretary, Department of Revenue
31 So. 3d 1083 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2010)
Word of Life Christian Center v. West
936 So. 2d 1226 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 2006)
Shaw Group, Inc. v. Kennedy
767 So. 2d 937 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2000)
In re Louisiana Health Service Indemnity Co.
723 So. 2d 997 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1998)
Con-Trux Construction v. Secretary, Department of Revenue & Taxation
711 So. 2d 324 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1998)
Tigator, Inc. v. W. BATON ROUGE POLICE JURY
657 So. 2d 221 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1995)
Tarver v. EI Du Pont De Nemours and Co.
634 So. 2d 356 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1994)
Opinion Number
Louisiana Attorney General Reports, 1993
Tarver v. Ormet Corp.
597 So. 2d 1172 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1992)
Swetman v. Teachers' Retirement System
578 So. 2d 149 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1991)
Mobil Oil Corp./The Superior Oil Co. v. McNamara
517 So. 2d 278 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1987)
Concordia Parish School Bd. v. Russ
491 So. 2d 1368 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1986)
Lafayette Parish Sch. Bd. v. Market Leasing
440 So. 2d 81 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1983)
McNamara v. U. O. P., Inc.
396 So. 2d 898 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
389 So. 2d 741, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcnamara-v-inc-lactapp-1980.