Reynaud v. Town of Winchester, No. Cv 92-0059816 (Mar. 16, 1993)

1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 2653, 8 Conn. Super. Ct. 357
CourtConnecticut Superior Court
DecidedMarch 16, 1993
DocketNo. CV 92-0059816
StatusUnpublished

This text of 1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 2653 (Reynaud v. Town of Winchester, No. Cv 92-0059816 (Mar. 16, 1993)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Reynaud v. Town of Winchester, No. Cv 92-0059816 (Mar. 16, 1993), 1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 2653, 8 Conn. Super. Ct. 357 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993).

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION The plaintiff, Anthony Reynaud has filed this appeal challenging the personal property tax assessment on plaintiff's video cassette tapes. In the alternative, the plaintiff has filed an amended complaint on February 17, 1993 claiming the video cassette tapes are intangible and thus not taxable under Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 12-71.

The plaintiff submitted a full list of video cassette tapes upon which the assessor based her assessment. The video tape cassettes were assessed using the cost minus depreciation method, arriving at a per tape assessment of $10.59. The plaintiff appealed the assessment as being excessive to the Board of Tax Review which reduced the assessment from $55,750 to $43,760.

The burden of proof rests with the plaintiff when claiming an illegal tax was imposed. Faith Center, Inc. v. Hartford, 192 Conn. 434, 437 (1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1018. The plaintiff asserts that the case of Northeast DataCom, Inc. v. Wallingford, 212 Conn. 639 (1989), which ruled computer software is intangible and therefore not subject to tax, prevents the taxing of the video cassette tapes held in plaintiff's store. Both the reasoning of Northeast DataCom and the inherent differences between computer software and video cassette tapes support the defendant's argument that video cassette tapes are fully taxable as tangible personal property. CT Page 2654

Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 12-71(a) provides:

All goods, chattels and effects or any interest therein, belonging to any person who is a resident in this state, shall be listed for purposes of property tax in the town where such person resides. . .

The term "goods, chattels and effects" was ruled to be synonymous with "tangible personal property" by the court in Northeast DataCom, Inc., supra, 644. The court concluded that computer software, which they defined to be a set of binary instructions, codes or programs or routines used to cause a computer to perform a specific task or function, Northeast DataCom, Inc., supra 640, fn. 1, was intangible and therefore not subject to taxation.

In Northeast DataCom the court defined the intangible intellectual component of software and ruled the town was taxing the intangible component. In the present case the town of Winchester taxes tangible video cassette tapes and not the intellectual component of that tape. The supreme court in Northeast DataCom recognized the distinction between the tangible and intangible components of certain personal property and ruled that the taxing of the intellectual component is illegal. Northeast DataCom, Inc., supra, 645.

In making the distinction between tangible and intangible, the court in Northeast DataCom, Inc. relied upon Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Tax Commissioner, 176 Conn. 604 (1979). Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. is directly on point with the present controversy. At issue was the rental of movies between a distributor and exhibitor. The plaintiff argued that such a rental agreement is a "license to exhibit publically what is on the film, and, therefore, is the transfer of an intangible right for a limited period of time and not a leasing or rental of tangible personal property. . ." Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., supra at 607. The court in Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. rejected the argument. It separated the intangible component of the copyright and the acquisition of services performed in producing the film from the simple acquisition of the film in its finished state in order to show it for profit. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., supra 610. The exhibitor only leased the film in its finished state. The acquisition of the finished product was the acquisition of tangible property. As the court stated:

In examining the character of the present agreement, although called a license, it is evident that under it the plaintiff's object was to acquire possession of the film in its finished state in order to reproduce it for profit rather than to acquire the services to perform in producing the film. CT Page 2655 (cite omitted) Although as the Plaintiff argued this performance could have been telecast without the film or could have been performed live on stage, the fact is, that was not the case. Rather, the performances were shown on film, which is tangible personal property. The transaction was therefore a lease of tangible personal property.

Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., supra 610.

The court recognized the tax was based on a value arrived at by looking to the number of persons expected to view the motion picture, that value being $595.00. The tax was not being imposed on a value based upon the cost of the actual film, the court noting the production costs alone were $3,500,000.00. $595.00 represented the market value of the tangible component of the move, $3,500,000.00 represented the fair market value of the intangible component. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., supra 606. Northeast DataCom ruled taxing the latter is an illegal tax on intangible personal property. The Town of Winchester is not taxing the tape based upon a value arrived at by including production costs of the movie on the tape. For this court to rule that video cassette tapes are tangible personal property, it need look no further than Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. There is no difference between a movie on a reel or a movie on a video cassette.

The court in Northeast DataCom adopted the reasoning of Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., and thus recognized the rental of a motion picture was a lease of tangible personal property, so long as the tax is not an attempt to tax the intellectual component of the movie. Northeast DataCom, supra, 645-646.

The court in Northeast DataCom provided an outline of the intangible elements of certain personal property, identifying such property as video cassettes, books, sheet music and musical recordings:

1. The right to produce and sell more copies.

2. The right to change the underlying work.

3. The right to license its use to others.

4. The right to transfer the copyright itself.

Northeast DataCom, Inc., supra, 646. "It is these incidents of the intellectual intangible component of the software property that Wallingford has impermissibly assessed as tangible personal property by linking these CT Page 2656 incorporeal incidents with the tangible medium in which the software is stored and transmitted." Northeast DataCom, Inc., supra, 646.

The Town of Winchester is doing none of the above by taxing the video cassette tapes. It is not taxing the intangible elements of the video cassette tapes as Mr. Reynaud possesses none of those elements. Mr. Reynaud cannot produce and sell more copies of the video cassette tapes. He cannot change the underlying work of the video cassette tapes. He cannot allow other video stores to use the video cassette tapes and he has no rights or powers to the copyright of the movie itself.

As in Columbia Pictures Industries Inc., the Town of Winchester is taxing the tangible cassette. The assessment is based upon the value of the finished product. The assessment is not based upon the value of the other rights which are retained by the picture company which produced the film. The town does not seek to tax that intangible property.

Not only does the reasoning of Northeast DataCom and Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.

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

Related

Leonard Building Corp. v. City of New Britain
154 A.2d 614 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1959)
Marcolini v. Allstate Insurance
278 A.2d 796 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1971)
O'BRIEN v. Board of Tax Review
362 A.2d 914 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1975)
Doe v. Manson
438 A.2d 859 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1981)
Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Tax Commissioner
410 A.2d 457 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1979)
O'Rourke v. City of Stamford
426 A.2d 311 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1979)
First National Bank of Springfield v. Dep't of Revenue
421 N.E.2d 175 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1981)
Bridgeport Hydraulic Co. v. Town of Stratford
94 A.2d 1 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1953)
Yale University v. City of New Haven
363 A.2d 1108 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1975)
Bridgeport Gas Co. v. Town of Stratford
216 A.2d 439 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1966)
Faith Center, Inc. v. City of Hartford
472 A.2d 16 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1984)
Northeast Datacom, Inc. v. City of Wallingford
563 A.2d 688 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1989)
Second Stone Ridge Cooperative Corp. v. City of Bridgeport
597 A.2d 326 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1991)
Tucker v. City of Hartford
545 A.2d 584 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 2653, 8 Conn. Super. Ct. 357, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reynaud-v-town-of-winchester-no-cv-92-0059816-mar-16-1993-connsuperct-1993.