Lester Associates v. Commonwealth

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided November 28, 2000

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 2000-11-28

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently February 2003

1 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“AND NOW, this 28th day of November, 2000, the Order of the Commonwealth Court is vacated. The Commonwealth Court erred when it relied upon Sabatine v. Commonwealth, 497 Pa. 453 , 442 A.2d 210, 212 (Pa.1981), for the general proposition that the Department of Revenue is not bound by a Common Pleas Court’s decision. Accordingly, this matter is REMANDED to the Commonwealth Court for consideration of whether Lester Associates proffered sufficient evidence that the March 20, 1992[sic] deed was void ab initio, Sabatine, 497 Pa. at 458 , 442 A.2d at 212 , such that there was no transfer of real estate, justifying the imposition of realty transfer tax by the Department of Revenue.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Lester Associates v. Commonwealth

Relies on Sabatine v. Commonwealth

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2000-11-28

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1ORDER

PER CURIAM:

¶2AND NOW, this 28th day of November, 2000, the Order of the Commonwealth Court is vacated. The Commonwealth Court erred when it relied upon Sabatine v. Commonwealth, 497 Pa. 453, 442 A.2d 210, 212 (1981), for the general proposition that the Department of Revenue is not bound by- a Common Pleas Court’s decision. Accordingly, this matter is REMANDED to the Commonwealth Court for consideration of whether Lester Associates proffered sufficient evidence that the March 20, 1992 deed was void ab ini-tio, Sabatine, 497 Pa. at 458, 442 A.2d at 212, such that there was no transfer of real estate, justifying the imposition of realty transfer tax by the Department of Revenue.