Wisconsin Electric Power Co. v. United States

69 S. Ct. 492, 93 L. Ed. 591, 93 L. Ed. 2d 591, 336 U.S. 176, 1949 U.S. LEXIS 2956, 1 C.B. 254, 37 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 818
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedFebruary 14, 1949
Docket237
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 69 S. Ct. 492 (Wisconsin Electric Power Co. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Wisconsin Electric Power Co. v. United States, 69 S. Ct. 492, 93 L. Ed. 591, 93 L. Ed. 2d 591, 336 U.S. 176, 1949 U.S. LEXIS 2956, 1 C.B. 254, 37 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 818 (U.S. 1949).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Reed

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Petitioner, engaged in the business of supplying electric energy to the public, seeks the refund of taxes paid by it pursuant to § 3411 of the Internal Revenue Code. That section, in pertinent part, provides for a tax

“. . . upon electrical energy sold for domestic or commercial consumption . . . equivalent to 3 per centum 1 of the price for which so sold, to be paid by the vendor under such rules and regulations as the Commissioner, with the approval of the Secretary, shall prescribe.” 2

Note that the statute taxes energy for domestic or commercial consumption. There is no provision for taxation of electrical energy used for industrial purposes. 3

The purchasers of the electric power here involved are 27 dairy plants which are engaged primarily in the collection, pasteurization, and distribution of fresh milk. The sole question presented by the case is whether the use of electricity by these dairies is commercial con *178 sumption within the meaning of the statute or industrial consumption, a use not covered by the statute.

The functions of the dairy plants are sufficiently similar so that they can be treated as one for the purpose of describing their methods of operation. The plants are buildings equipped with milk-handling machinery and facilities located either off the dairy farms, or on the dairy farm itself as an activity apart from milk production. Contracts for the purchase of raw milk are negotiated with nearby farms. 4 This milk is delivered in trucks of the producers or of the dairy plant, as the case may be, to the plant where it is received, weighed, tested for butterfat content, cooled, and mixed and standardized so as to achieve the proper butterfat content. Next it is pasteurized. Pasteurization consists of heating the milk to 143°-145° F., maintaining it at that level for about thirty minutes, and then subjecting it to sudden cooling to a point between 38° and 40° F. 5 The process is designed to kill pathogenic bacteria without destroying the natural creaming properties or the taste of the milk. Then the milk is drawn into bottles or cans which have been washed, sterilized, and cooled. Finally it is stored in refrigerated rooms to permit the cream line to form and to await delivery. 6 Most of it is delivered to customers in the dairy plant’s trucks or wagons. In some instances a small proportion is sold at the plant itself.

*179 Electric power is employed by the purchasing dairy plants in a number of ways. It is used to light the plants, including the garage space for the collecting and distributing trucks. It drives electric motors which pump refrigerants, deliver milk to and from the pasteurizer and to the bottling machines, operate the homogenizer, the bottling machine, the cream separator, and the machinery used in washing, sterilizing and conveying bottles. The electricity used by some of the plants is measured through a single meter, that of others through two or more meters, but in no case are the meters so connected to the incoming power line as to enable the energy supplied for one purpose to be differentiated from that supplied for another. We do not have before us a situation where pasteurization utilizes electrical energy that is measured by a meter exclusively used for pasteurization.

Pasteurization is accomplished by the use of special equipment designed for that purpose. Most of the electricity attributable to the process is devoted to the ice machines which perform the rapid cooling of the milk after the initial heating. Since the same cooling units perform the cooling which is necessary before and after pasteurization, however, the electricity which they consume for pasteurization alone cannot be ascertained. Pasteurization equipment, including the increased cooling equipment necessary 'therefor, accounts for about 15 or 20 percent of the total cost of plant equipment, excluding trucks and other vehicles. About one-tenth of the cost of plant operation, excluding the cost of the raw milk and costs attributable to distribution, is attributable to pasteurization.

Petitioner paid the tax on electrical energy sold to the dairy plants during the period from April, 1940, to July, 1943, and then brought suit to recover it on the ground that such energy was sold not for commercial but for *180 industrial consumption. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin held that the sales were for commercial consumption within the meaning of the statute, and therefore that the tax was valid. 69 F. Supp. 743. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed. 168 F. 2d 285. It summarized its views as follows:

“We agree with [District] Judge Duffy that the wording and legislative history of the Act make it clear that the predominant character of the business carried on by a consumer of electrical energy is what determines whether the electricity sold has been sold for 'commercial consumption’; hence we are content to adopt his opinion as that of this court.” Id. at 286.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit had held in United States v. Public Service Co. of Colorado, 143 F. 2d 79, that electrical energy sold to dairy plants operating substantially as these was sold for industrial rather than commercial consumption, and consequently was not taxable under § 3411. We granted certiorari in this case in order to resolve the apparent conflict between circuits and to settle the meaning of the statute as it applies to the business of this general type of dairy plant. 335 U. S. 842.

The tax now embodied in § 3411 was originally imposed upon the consumer of electricity by the Revenue Act of 1932, 47 Stat. 169, 266. This Act was amended in 1933 to make the burden of the tax fall directly upon the vendor. 48 Stat. 254, 256. No change of any significance for our purposes has occurred since the original enactment of this provision.

Although the language of the section does not include the word “industrial,” it is clear from the legislative history that “commercial” was used in contradistinction to *181 “industrial.” 7 While electricity sold for commercial consumption is taxed, that sold for industrial consumption is not. Thus our task resolves itself to a determination of the category in which the consumption of electricity by these dairy plants should be classified. We shall not undertake the difficult and here needless task of general definition which differentiates for this statutory clause between industrial and commercial in other lines of business activity. That is a problem primarily for the administrators of the section, with knowledge of the specific and varying facts.

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

Related

B. L. Cartage Co. v. City of Chicago
342 N.E.2d 733 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1976)
Union Pacific Railroad v. State Tax Commission of Utah
426 P.2d 231 (Utah Supreme Court, 1967)
Allied Chemical Corp v. Kowal
9 A.D.2d 121 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1959)
Rieck-McJunkin Dairy Co. v. Pittsburgh School District
66 A.2d 295 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1949)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
69 S. Ct. 492, 93 L. Ed. 591, 93 L. Ed. 2d 591, 336 U.S. 176, 1949 U.S. LEXIS 2956, 1 C.B. 254, 37 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 818, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wisconsin-electric-power-co-v-united-states-scotus-1949.