Solar Turbines Inc. v. Commonwealth
This text of 841 A.2d 626 (Solar Turbines Inc. v. Commonwealth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
OPINION BY
Before the court en banc are the exceptions of Solar Turbines, Inc., (Solar) from the February 4, 2003, opinion and order of this court, which affirmed the January 24, 2001, orders of the Board of Finance and Revenue denying Solar’s petitions for refunds of Utilities Gross Receipts Tax (Tax) payments for the years 1997 and 1998. The Tax is imposed pursuant to section 1101(b) of the Tax Reform Code of 1971 (Tax Code), Act of March 4, 1971, P.L. 6, as amended, 72 P.S. § 8101(b).1
As set forth in our initial decision,2 Solar’, a wholly owned subsidiary of Caterpillar, Inc., (Caterpillar), is a worldwide designer and manufacturer of gas turbine engines. Solar owns and operates its only electricity generation project in the town of Springettsbury, York County, Pennsylvania. The project was undertaken at the direction of Caterpillar’s board of directors [628]*628for the purpose of providing Caterpillar with inexpensive and reliable electricity. The electricity generated by Solar is provided to Caterpillar at cost. Since the inception of the project in 1989, Solar has reported sales of electricity to Caterpillar as taxable gross receipts.3
Solar filed petitions with the Board of Appeals for refunds of the Tax paid in 1997 and 1998, arguing that the Tax applies only to public utilities. The Board of Appeals denied both petitions, and the Board of Finance and Revenue affirmed. Solar appealed the matter to this court, which, after oral argument, affirmed the Board of Finance and Revenue’s decisions. Solar then filed the subject exceptions, which were argued before this court sitting en banc on December 10, 2003.4
In its exceptions, Solar contends that the panel erred in relying on Hanley and Bird v. Commonwealth, 139 Pa.Cmwlth. 563, 590 A.2d 1382 (1991) (en banc). In that case, we rejected the assertion that section 1101(a) of the Tax Code, 72 P.S. § 8101(a), which imposed the Tax on sales of gas, applied only to public utilities. In Hanley and Bird, we stated that “[sjection 1101(a) of the [Tax Code] identifies taxpayers by the function they perform, without regard to whether they áre a public utility.” Id. at 1386. Solar asserts that this principle was effectively overruled by a 1991 amendment to the Tax Code, which limits the imposition of the Tax on sales of gas to sales made by public utilities. However, although sections 1101(a) and (b) both have been amended since Hanley and Bird was decided, the legislature has not amended section 1101(b) to limit application of the Tax on sales of electric energy to those sales made by public utilities. Simply put, the legislative amendments to the Tax Code regarding gas companies and sales of gas were not extended to sales of electric energy.5
Solar’s remaining exceptions present the same issues that were addressed by this court in its February 4, 2003, decision. After review of the record and briefs, we conclude that none of the arguments presented by Solar warrants sustaining its exceptions and vacating this court’s panel decision.
Accordingly, Solar’s exceptions are denied.
President Judge COLINS dissents.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 24th day of January, 2004, the exceptions of Solar Turbines, Inc., to this court’s opinion and order in Solar Turbines, Inc. v. Commonwealth, 816 A.2d 362 (Pa.Cmwlth.2003), are hereby denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
841 A.2d 626, 2004 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 46, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/solar-turbines-inc-v-commonwealth-pacommwct-2004.