State, Department of Revenue v. Calcar Quarries, Inc.

394 N.E.2d 939, 182 Ind. App. 84, 71 Ind. Dec. 374, 1979 Ind. App. LEXIS 1314
CourtIndiana Court of Appeals
DecidedSeptember 11, 1979
Docket1-379A78
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 394 N.E.2d 939 (State, Department of Revenue v. Calcar Quarries, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State, Department of Revenue v. Calcar Quarries, Inc., 394 N.E.2d 939, 182 Ind. App. 84, 71 Ind. Dec. 374, 1979 Ind. App. LEXIS 1314 (Ind. Ct. App. 1979).

Opinion

LOWDERMILK, Presiding Judge.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Defendant-appellant State of Indiana, Department of Revenue (the State) appeals from the trial court’s judgment granting plaintiff-appellee Calcar Quarries, Inc. (Cal-car) a refund of certain sales and use taxes assessed and paid for the years 1970, 1971, and 1972.

FACTS

Calcar is an Indiana corporation which operates a stone quarry, a hot mix asphalt plant, and a ready mix concrete facility on approximately sixty acres near Paoli, Indiana.

The State conducted an audit in 1974 and subsequently demanded payment of tax on certain purchases which Calcar contends are exempt from taxation. Calcar paid the amount claimed due, unsuccessfully sought a refund, and then filed an action in the Orange Circuit Court to recover the amount paid.

The trial court ordered a refund of the tax paid on purchases totalling $50,496.39 after finding these purchases exempt under IC 1971, 6-2-l-39(b)(4) (Burns Code Ed.). The trial court also ordered a refund of the tax paid on purchases totalling $48,164.98 after finding the purchases exempt under IC 1971, 6 — 2-l-39(b)(6) (Burns Code Ed.).

ISSUES

1. Was Calcar engaged in public transportation within the meaning of IC 6-2-1— 39(b)(4)?

2. Were certain items which were purchased or rented by Calcar directly used in the direct processing of tangible personal property and therefore exempt under IC 6 — 2—l-39(b)(6)?

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

Issue One

IC 6-2-l-39(b) provides that the gross retail tax shall not apply to

“(4) . . . sale [and] storage, use or other consumption in this state of tangible personal property or service which is directly used or consumed in the rendering of public transportation of persons or property.”

The trial court found that

“25. . . . Calcar Quarries, Inc. is the possessor of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, issued on February 17,1956, which gave the following authority as a public carrier to Calcar Quarries, Inc., which said authority was in full force and effect during all of 1970, 1971 and 1972, as follows:
‘Road construction stone, agricultural limestone, limestone, sandstone, crushed stone and other stone, lime, lime products, sand, gravel, dirt, road building materials, road building machinery and supplies and mining equipment and supplies, quarrying equipment, bituminous road building materials of all kinds, concrete,
*941 Over all Federal, State and County highways in the State of Indiana, south of U.S. Highway 40 for the transportation of those commodities usually and ordinarily handled by dump trucks, limiting all hauls to a distance not exceeding 60 miles from point of origin to point of destination.’
26. That Calcar engaged in public transportation of said commodities for hire, which said commodities allowed under the Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity were produced at the Paoli Calcar Plant.
27. That crushed stone is sold at the Calcar Quarry Plant either to be delivered by trucks owned by others, or to be delivered by the Calcar trucks under the P.S.C.I. permit. The accounting systems have been set up so that stone is always charged separately but with a hauling charge added to stone delivered by Calcar trucks.”

The State contends that Calcar was not engaged in public transportation but instead was engaged primarily in the service of hauling its own product.

The State has defined “public transportation” in Ind.Admin. Rules & Regs. (6-2-1-89) — 11 (Burns Code Ed.) as follows:

“IV. . . . Public transportation shall mean and include the movement, transportation or carrying of persons and/or property for consideration by a common carrier, contract carrier, household goods carrier, carriers of exempt commodities, and other specialized carriers, performing public transportation service for compensation by highway, rail, air or water, which carriers operate under authority issued by, or are specifically exempt by statute or regulation from economic regulation of, the public service commission of Indiana, the interstate commerce commission, . . . how-1 ever, the fact that a company possesses a permit or authority issued by the P.S.C.I., I.C.C., etc., does not of itself mean that such a company is engaged in public transportation unless it is in fact engaged in the transportation of persons or property for consideration as defined above.

Jerry Meadows is manager of Calcar’s operations. Meadows testified that Calcar’s trucks had been used for hauling crushed stone taken from Calcar’s quarry and for hauling sand and other products which were not the products of Calcar’s operations. According to Meadows, Calcar’s hauling of property to its own job sites amounted to no more than ten percent of its crushed stone sales. 1

The accounting records for the trucking operation were kept separate from those of the quarry, asphalt, and ready mix operation. Meadows stated that Calcar sold its products F.O.B. Calcar’s plant. 2 When Cal-car hauled stone taken from its quarry, the money received for hauling the stone was segregated on Calcar’s accounting records from the amounts received for the stone itself.

The evidence proves that Calcar, while operating under authority of the public service commission of Indiana, transported property for consideration by highway and satisfied the State’s definition of "public transportation.” The trial court correctly held that Calcar was eligible to claim exemptions pursuant to IC 6-2-l~39(b)(4).

*942 Issue Two

IC 6-2-l-39(b) provides that the gross retail tax shall not apply to

“(6) Sales of manufacturing machinery, tools and equipment to be directly used by the purchaser in the direct production, manufacture, fabrication, assembly, extraction, mining, processing, refining or finishing of tangible personal property; . .

Judge White emphasized in Indiana Dep’t of State Revenue v. RCA Corp., (1974) 160 Ind.App. 55, 62, 310 N.E.2d 96, 100:

. . Indiana requires that for the sale to be exempt the property purchased must not only be ‘used directly’ in the manufacturing process (as do the statutes of other states) but that it must be ‘directly used ... in the direct production, manufacture,’ etc.” (Original emphasis)

The trial court ordered refund pursuant to IC 6 — 2-l-39(b)(6) for the following items:

Purchase Item Price
1. Ready mix truck rentals and repairs $ 4,453.11
2. Asphalt equipment rental 246.00
3.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
394 N.E.2d 939, 182 Ind. App. 84, 71 Ind. Dec. 374, 1979 Ind. App. LEXIS 1314, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-department-of-revenue-v-calcar-quarries-inc-indctapp-1979.