Sterigenics International v. County of Orange

47 Cal. App. 4th 1541, 55 Cal. Rptr. 2d 319, 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5724, 96 Daily Journal DAR 9260, 1996 Cal. App. LEXIS 728
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal
DecidedJuly 31, 1996
DocketG014938
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 47 Cal. App. 4th 1541 (Sterigenics International v. County of Orange) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Sterigenics International v. County of Orange, 47 Cal. App. 4th 1541, 55 Cal. Rptr. 2d 319, 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5724, 96 Daily Journal DAR 9260, 1996 Cal. App. LEXIS 728 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

Opinion

SONENSHINE, J.

Sterigenics International appeals a judgment entered in favor of the County of Orange, arguing the trial court erred in finding the cobalt 60 it uses to irradiate its customers’ products fails to come within the *1543 business inventory exemption of Revenue and Taxation Code section 219. 1 We affirm because, as used by Sterigenics, the cobalt 60 functions not as inventory, but as material used in the process of providing a service to its customers and is not an item regularly delivered as part of the provided service.

I

Exposing naturally occurring cobalt 59 to high levels of neutron radiation results in the production of cobalt 60, which gives off radiation as it decays, altering the atomic structure of items exposed to it. This process, known as irradiation, is used to cure wood products, strengthen plastics, and improve the color of precious stones. It is also used to sterilize medical equipment products. The amount of radioactivity an item receives is determined by its proximity to the cobalt 60 and the duration of exposure.

Sterigenics stores cobalt 60 in cylindrical containers, exposing its customers’ products to the resulting radiation. In 1989, the county assessed property taxes against the cobalt 60 in Sterigenics’s possession from 1985 to 1989. Sterigenics paid the taxes but sought a refund, arguing the material was business inventory under section 219 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.

The trial court disagreed, concluding: “No cobalt is delivered to any of the plaintiff’s customers. At best, radiation emitted by the cobalt-60 irradiates the plaintiff’s customers’ products. Although these customers are charged in accordance with the radiation dosage administered to their products, they are surely paying only because they expect a given result—whether it be sterilization, curing, strengthening or otherwise.”

II

Revenue and Taxation Code section 129 defines business inventories as (1) “goods intended for sale or lease in the ordinary course of business” and (2) “raw materials and work in process with respect to such goods.” 2 The State Board of Equalization promulgated regulations designed to clarify that which falls within the business inventories exemption. California Code of Regulations, title 18, section 133, subdivision (a)(1) defines business inventories to “include all tangible personal property, whether raw materials, work *1544 in process or finished goods, which will become a part of or are themselves items of personalty held for sale or lease . . . .” 3 Property held by nonprofessional businesses is included if the item is regularly delivered to the customer as part of the service provided. (§ 133, subd. (c).)

Machinery and equipment are excluded from business inventories because they are “property intended to be used in the production, manufacturing or processing of tangible personal property, [or] the performance of services or for other purposes (e.g., research, testing, experimentation) . . . .” (§ 1521, subd. (a)(6).) Moreover, section 133, subdivision (b)(1) excludes “office supplies, furniture, machines and equipment and manufacturing machinery, equipment and supplies such as dies, patterns, jigs, tooling or chemicals used to produce a chemical or physical reaction . . . .”

Ill

Based on the above, there are three ways property qualifies for the exemption. One, it can be an item which is actually held for sale or lease, like cars owned by a car dealer. Two, it can be intended to be incorporated into an item for sale or lease, like leather held by a purse manufacturer. Finally, even property held by service providers qualifies if it is regularly delivered to the customer as part of the provided service, like clothes hangers and plastic bags provided by dry cleaners.

Sterigenics maintains cobalt 60 qualifies for the exemption because it is “delivered to [its] customers as part of its services.” Sterigenics explains, “cobalt-60 ‘loses’ part of itself (mass), which loss becomes radiation that is absorbed and permanently retained by the customers’ products. . . . Unlike energy absorbed in the form of heat (which dissipates), the energy absorbed from cobalt-60 by those products permanently alters their energy states and *1545 molecular bonds. The cobalt-60 does not leave the customers’ products once it is absorbed, and thus it is delivered to the customer as part of [its] regular, nonprofessional services . . . .” (Original italics.) Sterigenics is wrong.

We quickly dispense with the first category. The cobalt 60 itself is obviously not being held for sale. Sterigenics does not sell little bits of cobalt 60. What it does sell is the irradiation process.

As to the second category, Sterigenics’s argument again fails because it uses cobalt 60 to facilitate a service. The cobalt 60 functions as part of a process in which mass is lost, like a drill bit used in making a piece of furniture, or the soap used by a pet store to clean a customer’s pet dog (we are aware these similes are not precisely analogous to radiation). True, “mass” lost in the irradiation process may be absorbed into its customers’ products like, to use a very rough analogy, chemicals used in dry cleaning which are somehow “absorbed” into a customer’s clothes. But, just as a dry cleaner is not in the business of selling cleaning chemicals, Sterigenics is not selling cobalt 60 qua cobalt 60, but the effect that cobalt 60 has on various items.

Finally, we cannot conclude cobalt 60 is a product delivered to the customer as part of Sterigenics’s provided service, like a plastic bag for a garment provided by a dry cleaner. Unlike the garment bag, it is not delivered to the customer separate from the customer’s property on which the service has been performed. 4

As noted by the court in Associated Beverage Co. v. Board of Equalization (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 192, 211 [273 Cal.Rptr. 639], “[statutes granting exemption from taxation are to be strictly construed to avoid enlarging or extending the concession beyond the plain meaning of the language used in granting it.” Moreover, “. . . the party claiming an exemption bears the burden of showing it clearly comes within the terms authorizing exemption [citations], and any doubt must be resolved against the right to an exemption [citations].” (Ibid.)

*1546 So it is here. Unlike the containers in which Sterigenics returns its customers’ products, cobalt 60 is used to treat its customers’ products, and as such does not even come close to falling within the exemption. The judgment must be affirmed. Respondent shall recover its costs on appeal.

Sills, P. J., and Crosby, J., concurred.

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

Related

Amdahl Corp. v. County of Santa Clara
10 Cal. Rptr. 3d 486 (California Court of Appeal, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
47 Cal. App. 4th 1541, 55 Cal. Rptr. 2d 319, 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5724, 96 Daily Journal DAR 9260, 1996 Cal. App. LEXIS 728, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sterigenics-international-v-county-of-orange-calctapp-1996.