State v. Helburn Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

46 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ * * * Sales of tangible personal property or products to manufacturers, * * * or compounders, which are used or consumed by them * * * and do not become an ingredient or component part of the tangible personal property manufactured or compounded are retail sales. The term 'sale at retail’ or ‘retail sale’ shall also mean and include the withdrawal, use or consumption of any tangible personal property by anyone who purchases same at wholesale, except property which has been previously withdrawn from the business or stock and so used or consumed and with respect to which property the tax has been paid because of such previous withdrawal, use or consumption, and except property which enters into and becomes an ingredient or component part of tangible personal property or products manufactured or compounded for sale and not for the personal and private use or consumption of any person so withdrawing, using or consuming the same; and such wholesale purchaser shall report and pay the taxes thereon.” (The sentence in which emphasis is supplied was added in the 1947 amendment.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State, Department of Revenue v. Morrison Cafeterias Consolidated, Inc. of Delaware · State v. T. R. Miller Mill Company

2. ““The administrative construction given by the highest officials charged with the duty of administering tax laws, while not binding on the State, is to be considered in the interpretation of a statute which has not been interpreted by the courts. State v. Advertiser Co., 257 Ala. 423 , 59 So.2d 576 ; Cole v. Gullatt, 241 Ala. 669 , 4 So.2d 412 . Cf. Merriwether v. State, supra. ( 252 Ala. 590 , 42 So.2d 465 , 11 A.L.R.2d 918 ). “Subdivision (j) deals with coverage, not with an exemption, and, hence, it should be construed strictly against the taxing power and with favor indulged toward the taxpayer. (Citing cases). “In view of the history of Subdivision (j), the construction placed on it for almost ten years by the State Department of Revenue and the rule that it must be strictly construed against the taxing power, we hold that it is not authority for the imposition of a sales tax on Helburn based on the equipment furnished by Helburn in performing the contracts here involved, and that the trial court correctly vacated and set aside the part of the assessment based thereon. * * * ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Southern Electric Generating Company

3. “"[The withdrawal provision] has not been considered by the State Department of Revenue to be necessary to the collection of sales taxes on equipment furnished and installed under similar contracts with private individuals. That Department, prior to the time that [the withdrawal provision] became a part of our Sales Tax Law, considered such contracts with private individuals to encompass an ordinary sale of the equipment furnished and installed and has permitted the dealer to pass the tax on to the buyer whereas [the withdrawal provision] provides that the taxes due thereunder are to be paid by the party who purchases at wholesale. And there has been no change of policy in regard to transactions with private individuals since the adoption of [the withdrawal provision]."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 455 So. 2d 849 - Ex Parte Disco Aluminum Products Co., Inc.