White Oak Corp. v. Department of Revenue Services

Connecticut Appellate Court

White Oak Corp. v. Department of Revenue Services

476 A.2d 639, 2 Conn. App. 165, 1984 Conn. App. LEXIS 620

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedMarch 8, 1984

Docket(2386)

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 476 A.2d 639 (White Oak Corp. v. Department of Revenue Services) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Appellate Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

White Oak Corp. v. Department of Revenue Services, 476 A.2d 639, 2 Conn. App. 165, 1984 Conn. App. LEXIS 620 (Colo. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff appealed, pursuant to General Statutes § 12-422, from a decision of the department of revenue services which assessed a use tax deficiency against it. The parties submitted a stipulation of facts to a state trial referee, Hon. Howard W. *166 Alcorn, acting as the trial court, who rendered judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant appeals from that judgment. 1 The stipulation of facts, in summary, states that the plaintiff provided the services of watchmen, traffic officers and flagmen, and provided flashing lights as was required by its contracts with the state for highway and bridge construction. The stipulation further provides that the state reimbursed the plaintiff for the cost. A use tax deficiency of $11,818.19 was assessed against the plaintiff on the purchase of these services and the rental of flashing lights. The tax was imposed under General Statutes § 12-411.

The issue of this appeal is whether the trial court erred in finding that the services in question and the rental of equipment were resold to the state and were therefore exempt from the use tax. The defendant argues that the services and equipment were not resold to the state but were used by the plaintiff in performing its contracts and that the plaintiff is not in the business of reselling these items.

The trial court filed a detailed memorandum of decision; White Oak Corporation v. Department of Revenue Services, 39 Conn. Sup. 234, 475 A.2d 343 (1982); which adequately discusses the facts and the sole issue. After examining the record and the briefs of the parties, we conclude that no further articulation of the law or facts is necessary. Faith Center, Inc. v. Hartford, 192 Conn. 434, 436, 472 A.2d 16 (1984); Hinchliffe v. American Motors Corporation, 192 Conn. 252, 253, 470 A.2d 1216 (1984). The trial court memorandum should be referred to for a detailed discussion.

There is no error.

1

This appeal, originally filed in the Supreme Court, was transferred to this court. Public Acts, Spec. Sess., June, 1983, No. 83-29, § 2 (c).

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

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff appealed, pursuant to General Statutes § 12-422, from a decision of the department of revenue services which assessed a use tax deficiency against it. The parties submitted a stipulation of facts to a state trial referee, Hon. Howard W. *166 Alcorn, acting as the trial court, who rendered judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant appeals from that judgment. 1 The stipulation of facts, in summary, states that the plaintiff provided the services of watchmen, traffic officers and flagmen, and provided flashing lights as was required by its contracts with the state for highway and bridge construction. The stipulation further provides that the state reimbursed the plaintiff for the cost. A use tax deficiency of $11,818.19 was assessed against the plaintiff on the purchase of these services and the rental of flashing lights. The tax was imposed under General Statutes § 12-411.

The issue of this appeal is whether the trial court erred in finding that the services in question and the rental of equipment were resold to the state and were therefore exempt from the use tax. The defendant argues that the services and equipment were not resold to the state but were used by the plaintiff in performing its contracts and that the plaintiff is not in the business of reselling these items.

The trial court filed a detailed memorandum of decision; White Oak Corporation v. Department of Revenue Services, 39 Conn. Sup. 234, 475 A.2d 343 (1982); which adequately discusses the facts and the sole issue. After examining the record and the briefs of the parties, we conclude that no further articulation of the law or facts is necessary. Faith Center, Inc. v. Hartford, 192 Conn. 434, 436, 472 A.2d 16 (1984); Hinchliffe v. American Motors Corporation, 192 Conn. 252, 253, 470 A.2d 1216 (1984). The trial court memorandum should be referred to for a detailed discussion.

There is no error.

1

This appeal, originally filed in the Supreme Court, was transferred to this court. Public Acts, Spec. Sess., June, 1983, No. 83-29, § 2 (c).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

476 A.2d 639, 2 Conn. App. 165, 1984 Conn. App. LEXIS 620, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-oak-corp-v-department-of-revenue-services-connappct-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack