State v. United States Steel Corporation

206 So. 2d 358, 281 Ala. 553, 1968 Ala. LEXIS 1235
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedJanuary 11, 1968
Docket6 Div. 395
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 206 So. 2d 358 (State v. United States Steel Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. United States Steel Corporation, 206 So. 2d 358, 281 Ala. 553, 1968 Ala. LEXIS 1235 (Ala. 1968).

Opinion

HARWOOD, Justice.

This case was tried in Circuit Court of Jefferson County, in Equity, as an appeal by the United States Steel Corporation, from a final assessment of sales taxes and interest in the amount of $217,154.47. The assessment was for sales taxes asserted to be due upon sales of oxygen to United States Steel during the period 1 May 1961 through 30 April 1964. The oxygen was used in the course of manxxfacturing steel in the open hearth fxxrnaces of the company at its Fairfield Works in Jefferson County, Alabama.

The basic issue in the case was whether the sales of oxygen on which the assessment was based were retail sales subject to the retail tax, or whether they were wholesale sales which were not subject to the tax.

The taxing statutes involved in this appeal are Sections 786(2) (1) (i) and *555 '786(2) (1) (j) of Title 51 Code of Alabama 1940 (Pocket Part).

The portion of Section 786(2) (1) (i) pertinent to this review reads:

“The term ‘wholesale sale’ shall include a sale of tangible personal property or products (including iron ore) to a manufacturer or compounder which enters into and becomes an ingredient or component part of the tangible personal property or products which he manufactures or compounds for sale, and the furnished container and label thereof

The pertinent portion of Section 786(2) (1) (j) provides:

“The term ‘sale at retail’ or ‘retail sale,’ shall mean all sales of tangible personal property except those above defined as wholesale sales * * * Sales of tangible personal property or products to manufacturers, quarry operators, mine operators, or compounders, which are used or consumed by them in manufacturing, mining, quarrying or compounding and do not become an ingredient or component part of the tangible personal property manufactured or compounded are retail sales * *

Also involved in this review are two rules promulgated by the Department of Revenue in January 1951, as amended in August 1960.

Rule W27-151, in pertinent part, reads:

“Raw Materials and Supplies Purchased by Manufacturers and Compounders. — The ingredients and/or materials purchased by manufacturers and compounders to become a part of the property manufactured or compounded for sale are purchased at wholesale, tax free, by such manufacturers and compounders * *

Rule W27-171 reads:

“Ingredient or Component of Product Manufactured or Compounded for Sale. —Any material purchased by a manufacturer which he intends to become a part of his product and which' does in fact become a part thereof, even to the extent of %oo of 1% or less, is purchased at wholesale, tax free. This rule, however, is not to be understood to exempt materials which do not serve any purpose after their use by the manufacturer' and which do not become attached to or mixed with the other ingredients or components in such a way that they become an actual part of the product. Act No. 100, Section 1 (i); Title 51 Section 786(2) (i).
“For Example:
“Detergents used in textile manufacturing and chlorine used in purifying aluminum which can be found in small amounts in the finished products where they serve no useful purpose are subject' to tax. ‘
“Softeners used in finished textiles which give the finished product a desired ‘soft feel’ are purchased at wholesale tax free.”

After a hearing, the Chancellor entered a final decree as follows:

“Upon careful consideration, this Court is of the opinion and concludes that the Appellant has successfully met the burden resting upon it to prevail on its appeal, the Court being persuaded-that the sales of oxygen to Appellant used by it in steel manufacturing were wholesale sales under the statutes and departmental rules and the governing case law inasmuch as a portion of this oxygen became an ingredient or component part of products manufactured for sale serving a useful purpose in samé- and being intended to remain therein.
“It is accordingly ORDERED, AD-' JUDGED, DECLARED AND DECREED by the Court that that certain final assessment of sales tax against Appellant, United States Steel Corporation,, entered by the Department of Revenue! *556 of Appellee, State of Alabama, on to-wit the 4th day of August 1965, in the amount of $217,154.47, inclusive of interest, be and the same hereby is vacated and set aside, same being erroneously based upon wholesale sales not subject to the sales tax, and the Appellant, United States Steel Corporation is entitled to a refund of the aforesaid amount paid by it on August 18, 1965, together with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from the said date of payment until said refund is made.”
From this decree the state has perfected this appeal.

The appellee manufactures steel in open hearth furnaces. In this operation it uses large quantities of lance, or pure oxygen, which is injected into the molten metal in the furnace by means of “lances” lowered through the roof of the furnace. The oxygen is blown into the molten metal under high pressure, and is dispersed throughout the molten metal.

Steel cannot be manufactured in open hearth furnaces without oxygen from some source, and prior to the use of lance oxygen it was necessary to continue adding iron ore to the molten metal in the furnace.

) The primary purpose of adding oxygen is to regulate the carbon content of the steel.

All steel produced in open hearth furnaces contains some amount of oxygen, and the presence of oxygen in steel is detectable by analysis.

' Slag, a by-product of the manufacture of steel in open hearth furnaces, is composed almost exclusively of various oxides, the oxides of phosphorous and manganese in the slag being the basis of its value as a fertilizer or soil conditioner. In the three years covered by the assessment, the appellee sold $3,070,000 worth of slag.

It is undisputed that a considerable quantity of oxygen remains in the slag, and that some oxygen also remains in the steel.

Some five metallurgists testified as experts in the proceedings below, four for the appellee company and one for the state. All of the witnesses are recognized as of outstanding competency in the field of metallurgy.

Mr. Robert J. King, of the Applied Science Research Laboratory of the United States Steel Corporation, stated he had observed steel making in the open hearth furnaces of the appellee in its Fairfield Works. Motion pictures of this process, including the injection of lance oxygen were received in evidence. Mr. King testified that it was the intent and purpose in injecting lance oxygen in the manufacturing process to cause the oxygen to enter into and become a component part of the molten metal, and that the oxygen was an essential raw material without which steel could not be produced.

Mr. King further testified that an experiment had been performed _ at the Applied Science Laboratory, under his supervision, which simulated the steel making process at appellee’s works.

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

Related

Lone Star Industries, Inc. v. Department of Revenue
647 P.2d 1013 (Washington Supreme Court, 1982)
Bullock v. Lone Star Industries, Inc.
584 S.W.2d 386 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1979)
American Stores Packing Co. v. Peters
277 N.W.2d 544 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1979)
Boswell v. General Oils, Inc.
368 So. 2d 27 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 1978)
Robertson & Associates (Ala.), Inc. v. Boswell
361 So. 2d 1070 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1978)
State v. Sprinkle Net Shop, Inc.
351 So. 2d 608 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 1977)
Boswell v. Abex Corporation
317 So. 2d 317 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1975)
Boswell v. Abex Corporation
317 So. 2d 314 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 1975)
Blackmon v. Atlantic Steel Co.
203 S.E.2d 710 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1973)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
206 So. 2d 358, 281 Ala. 553, 1968 Ala. LEXIS 1235, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-united-states-steel-corporation-ala-1968.