Red Cedar Shingle Bureau v. State

382 P.2d 503, 62 Wash. 2d 341, 1963 Wash. LEXIS 336
CourtWashington Supreme Court
DecidedJune 13, 1963
Docket36359
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 382 P.2d 503 (Red Cedar Shingle Bureau v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Washington Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Red Cedar Shingle Bureau v. State, 382 P.2d 503, 62 Wash. 2d 341, 1963 Wash. LEXIS 336 (Wash. 1963).

Opinions

Finley, J.

The Red Cedar Shingle Bureau initiated this action in the Superior Court for Thurston County for a refund of business and occupation taxes assessed against [342]*342the Bureau and paid by it under protest to the State Tax Commission. The Bureau and the Tax Commission stipulated as to the facts. The matter as submitted to the trial court involved solely a question of interpretation of certain statutory provisions pertaining to the business and occupation tax. The trial court resolved these questions in favor of the taxpayer and ordered a refund. The Tax Commission has appealed.

The Red Cedar Shingle Bureau was incorporated in 1926 as a nonprofit corporation under the laws of the State of Washington. Its purposes and operations classify it generally as a “trade association.” Its office and principal place of business is in Seattle. Additional pertinent facts (excerpted verbatim from the agreed stipulation of facts entered into by the parties relative to the trial in the Superior Court for Thurston County) are as follows:

“Prior to 1926, trade promotion and related activities had been conducted by the Rite-Grade Shingle Association and earlier by a branch of the West Coast Lumbermen’s Association. By 1926, however, the need for expanded trade promotional activities, a nationwide increase in anti-shingle legislation, particularly in respect to municipal ordinances, and the lack of uniform grade standards, motivated the manufacturers of red cedar shingles in disbanding the Rite-Grade Shingle Association and organizing the Bureau. Prior to 1926 the red cedar shingle industry, to a large extent, had no uniform grade standard and no inspection and certification service. The efforts of the Bureau culminated in 1931 in a standardization of grades reflected through the adoption of a Commercial Standard for No. 1 grade red cedar shingles by the National Bureau of Standards, a division of the United States Department of Commerce. This Commercial Standard has been revised from time to time and in 1955 a Commercial Standard was approved for machine-grooved shakes. The Bureau secured a trademark for it label, which is placed on each bundle of shingles manufactured by member mills, and this trademark, ‘Certi-grade’, together with the companion trademark ‘Certi-groove’, attached to each bundle or carton of machine-[343]*343grooved shakes manufactured by members of the Bureau, is a standard of quality throughout the United States.

“At all times since its incorporation, the Bureau has been and is in the business of promoting trade, and, until March 14, 1958, its membership was composed primarily of manufacturers of red cedar shingles. On March 14, 1958, the ByLaws of the Bureau were revised to enlarge its membership so as to include as members manufacturers of machine-grooved shakes.

“Throughout its existence the membership of the Bureau has necessarily varied from time to time. With the exception of a very minute percentage, all red cedar shingles and machine-grooved shakes which are manufactured from red cedar are produced solely within the state of Washington and Oregon and the Province of British Columbia. It is estimated that at the present time the membership of the Bureau represents approximately 95¡% of all red cedar shingles and machine-grooved shakes manufactured from red cedar. As of September, 1960, the membership of the Bureau was composed of 116 manufacturers, of which 53 were situated within the State of Washington, 27 within the State of Oregon, and 36 within the Province of British Columbia, Canada. Approximately 50% of all the shingles and machine-grooved shakes produced by members of the Bureau are produced in British Columbia, approximately 35% within the State of Washington, and approximately 15% within the State of Oregon. . . .

“. . . During the period January 1, 1954, to June 30, 1960, the Bureau expended in furtherance of its objects and purposes the sum of $1,894,384.00, of which $358,987.00 represented general office and administration expense, $1,106,655.00 represented trade promotion and advertising together with building code, anti-shingle ordinance and insurance differential matters, and $428,742.00 represented inspection expense. The activities of the Bureau fall generally within three categories: (1) grade marking and inspection; (2) trade promotion and advertising; and (3) [344]*344building codes, anti-shingle ordinances, and insurance differential matters.

“1. Grade marking and inspection. The Bureau maintains a staff of seven inspectors who travel constantly throughout Washington, Oregon and British Columbia inspecting at the mill the manufacture of Certigrade shingles and Certi-groove shakes. No charge is made to the members of the Bureau for the inspection service and there is no necessary relationship between the time expended by the inspectors and the size or production capacity of the member mills in that there are differences in mill locations necessitating extended travel in respect to some mills and larger mills oftentimes have less inspection problems than do smaller mills.

“2. Trade promotion and advertising. The trade promotional and advertising activities of the Bureau encompass space advertising in national publications, the production and dissemination of numerous and varied pieces of literature and the individual promotional activities of five field men, each assigned a different geographical territory within the United States and who call upon architects, builders, lumber dealers and distributors, and others in related fields. National advertising is directed both to the ‘trade’, that is architects, builders, retailers and distributors, and to the ultimate consumer.

“Literature extends from a technical manual,.the Certi-grade handbook, of which almost a million copies have been distributed, to various types of literature directed to specific questions of application and architectural variations, literature directed primarily to the consumer and a newspaper mat service. During a typical year over 200,000 pieces of literature are distributed from the Bureau office by direct mail, through the field men and through the member mills themselves. All literature of the Bureau is available without charge to all members.

“The Bureau field men are constantly endeavoring to enlarge the market and create a demand for Certigrade shingles and Certigroove shakes; in addition to contacting builders, architects, dealers and distributors, the field men [345]*345lecture at universities, conduct seminars in respect to application, staff convention exhibits, sponsored and maintained by the Bureau at conventions held by builders, architects and dealers, and generally act as trouble shooters in behalf of the Bureau and its membership. The activities of the Bureau field men are solely in behalf of the Bureau, although their services are also available to all the individual members without charge.

“3. Building codes, anti-shingle ordinances and insurance differential matters. Throughout the period of the Bureau’s existence, the shingle industry has been constantly confronted with anti-shingle legislation and discriminatory insurance differentials. Both from the Seattle office and through its field men, the Bureau has combated anti-shingle ordinances and legislation and has been able to secure approval for wood shingles as applied to roofs, with some limitations, within the three major building codes in use in the United States.

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

Related

Royal Oaks Country Club v. Dep't of Revenue
Washington Supreme Court, 2024
HomeStreet, Inc. v. STATE, DEPT. OF REVENUE
210 P.3d 297 (Washington Supreme Court, 2009)
HomeStreet, Inc. v. Department of Revenue
166 Wash. 2d 444 (Washington Supreme Court, 2009)
Automobile Club v. Department of Revenue
621 P.2d 760 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1980)
Dailey v. Bechtel Corporation
207 S.E.2d 169 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1974)
GROUP HEALTH CO-OP. OF PUGET SOUND, INC. v. State Tax Comm'n
433 P.2d 201 (Washington Supreme Court, 1967)
Red Cedar Shingle Bureau v. State
382 P.2d 503 (Washington Supreme Court, 1963)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
382 P.2d 503, 62 Wash. 2d 341, 1963 Wash. LEXIS 336, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/red-cedar-shingle-bureau-v-state-wash-1963.