Passaic Transit Concrete Co. v. Martin

New Jersey Tax Court

Passaic Transit Concrete Co. v. Martin

19 A.2d 681, 19 N.J. Misc. 369, 1941 N.J. Misc. LEXIS 54

CourtNew Jersey Tax Court

DecidedApril 29, 1941

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 19 A.2d 681 (Passaic Transit Concrete Co. v. Martin) 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

Passaic Transit Concrete Co. v. Martin, 19 A.2d 681, 19 N.J. Misc. 369, 1941 N.J. Misc. LEXIS 54 (N.J. Super. Ct. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Quinn, President.

Petitioner was duly assessed for corporation franchise taxes for the year 1940 by respondent. It seeks exemption from the tax under the provisions of R. S. 54:13-7, as a manufacturing company, more than 50% of whose capital' stock issued and outstanding is invested in manufacturing in this state. The proof is to the effect that its entire capital is invested in a plant at which it mixes cement, stone, gravel, sand and water to produce concrete. The product is delivered, freshly prepared, in its plastic state, to the place of consumption. We think it is beyond doubt that this activity is manufacture, and that petitioner is a manufacturing company. Commissioner v. McGrady-Rogers Co. (1934), 316 Pa. 155; 174 Atl. Rep. 395.

The assessment is improper and will be ordered set aside. Judgment accordingly.

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

Quinn, President.

Petitioner was duly assessed for corporation franchise taxes for the year 1940 by respondent. It seeks exemption from the tax under the provisions of R. S. 54:13-7, as a manufacturing company, more than 50% of whose capital' stock issued and outstanding is invested in manufacturing in this state. The proof is to the effect that its entire capital is invested in a plant at which it mixes cement, stone, gravel, sand and water to produce concrete. The product is delivered, freshly prepared, in its plastic state, to the place of consumption. We think it is beyond doubt that this activity is manufacture, and that petitioner is a manufacturing company. Commissioner v. McGrady-Rogers Co. (1934), 316 Pa. 155; 174 Atl. Rep. 395.

The assessment is improper and will be ordered set aside. Judgment accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.2d 681, 19 N.J. Misc. 369, 1941 N.J. Misc. LEXIS 54, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/passaic-transit-concrete-co-v-martin-njtaxct-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack