{ "id": 8720352, "name": "Georgia Pacific Corp. v. B. Bryan Larry, Commissioner of Revenues", "name_abbreviation": "Georgia Pacific Corp. v. Larry", "decision_date": "1967-04-24", "docket_number": "5-4188", "first_page": "428", "last_page": "435", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "242 Ark. 428" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "413 S.W.2d 868" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "240 Ark. 979", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1727709 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/240/0979-01" ] }, { "cite": "205 Ark. 501", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1488235 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1943, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/205/0501-01" ] }, { "cite": "213 Ark. 140", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1467015 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1949, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/213/0140-01" ] }, { "cite": "217 Ark. 755", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8724340 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/217/0755-01" ] }, { "cite": "213 Ark. 396", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1467014 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/213/0396-01" ] }, { "cite": "206 Ark. 1086", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1485108 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/206/1086-01" ] }, { "cite": "202 Ark. 814", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1449845 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/202/0814-01" ] }, { "cite": "207 Ark. 252", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1481762 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/207/0252-01" ] }, { "cite": "19 S.W. 2d 382", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "case_ids": [ 10271388 ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/sw2d/19/0382-01" ] }, { "cite": "209 Ark. 18", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1475860 ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/209/0018-01" ] }, { "cite": "209 Ark. 824", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1475883 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/209/0824-01" ] }, { "cite": "234 Ark. 973", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1688474 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/234/0973-01" ] }, { "cite": "232 Ark. 255", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1694098 ], "weight": 4, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/232/0255-01" ] }, { "cite": "214 Ark. 308", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8720398 ], "weight": 4, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/214/0308-01" ] }, { "cite": "209 Ark. 750", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1475827 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/209/0750-01" ] }, { "cite": "88 S. W. 2d 81", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "191 Ark. 854", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1418578 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/191/0854-01" ] }, { "cite": "221 Ark. 720", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1656570 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/221/0720-01" ] }, { "cite": "224 Ark. 408", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1646595 ], "weight": 4, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/224/0408-01" ] }, { "cite": "206 Ark. 51", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1485094 ], "weight": 4, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/206/0051-01" ] }, { "cite": "179 S.W. 491", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "120 Ark. 295", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1561061 ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/120/0295-01" ] }, { "cite": "204 Ark. 492", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1444105 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/204/0492-01" ] }, { "cite": "205 Ark. 501", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1488235 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1943, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/205/0501-01" ] }, { "cite": "213 Ark. 140", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1467015 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1949, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/213/0140-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 666, "char_count": 12322, "ocr_confidence": 0.522, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.4663381157197323e-07, "percentile": 0.6583262190189466 }, "sha256": "b7ed4e7c90691ae4efab8101d2a81d51bbf9ddcbb2914ae21d19dc09427effe7", "simhash": "1:37ecdd12a06c4592", "word_count": 2098 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:00:12.038660+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "FoglemaN and Byrd, JJ., would reverse as to both sales tax and use tax." ], "parties": [ "Georgia Pacific Corp. v. B. Bryan Larry, Commissioner of Revenues" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Lyle Brown, Justice.\nThe Arkansas Commissioner of Revenues assessed a sales tax against Georgia Pacific Corporation on materials manufactured in Arkansas by Georgia Pacific. The materials were sold; they were withdrawn from stock and utilized in Georgia Pacific\u2019s facility at Crossett, Arkansas. Secondly, the commissioner assessed an Arkansas Compensating (Use) Tax against Georgia Pacific on products'which Georgia Pacific manufactured without the State and which were shipped to Crossett and likewise utilized in the Crossett facility. The trial court upheld both assessments.\nSales Tax. The Arkansas Gross Receipts Act of 1941 (Sales Tax) is basically a tax on gross proceeds, or gross receipts, derived from the sale of tangible personal property and certain specified services. However, the 'Legislature enlarged the term \u201cgross proceeds\u201d or \u201cgross receipts\u201d to include stock withdrawals for personal use. Section 2 (d) of Act 386 reads as follows:\n\u201c(d) [Standard definition of \u2018gross proceeds\u2019 or \u2018gross receipts.\u2019 The term \u2018gross proceeds\u2019 or \u2018gross receipts\u2019 shall include the value of any goods, wares, merchandise, or property withdrawn or used from the established business or from the stock in trade of the established reserves for consumption or use in such businesses or by any other person.\u201d Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7\u00a7 84-1902 (Repl. 1960).\nWith respect to the second paragraph of Section 2 (d), it was interpreted by this court in Cook, Com. of Rev. v. Southwest Hotels, Inc., 213 Ark. 140, 209 S. W. 2d 469 (1949) :\n\u201cIt cannot be doubted that under \u00a7 2 (d) of Act 386 one who withdraws merchandise or commodities from his commercial establishment or stockpile, or who reserves it for personal use, is. chargeable with the two per cent tax.\u201d\nIt is our holding that Georgia Pacific is liable for the sales tas.\nUse. Tax. The Arkansas Compensating Tax Alct of 1941 has no provision even remotely resembling the \u201cwithdrawal for use\u201d provision contained in the sales tax act. Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 84-3105 imposes a tax on articles purchased for use, storage, or consumption within this State. Throughout the Act, the words, \u201csales,\u201d \u201csales price,\u201d and \u201cpurchase,\u201d are used to predicate the taxing of the use of the articles purchased for use, storage, or consumption.\nSince there are no express words in the Use Tax Act which wonld justify the imposition of the tax on \u201cwithdrawals for use,\u201d it is onr duty to resolve the question in favor of the taxpayer. See U-Drive-Em Service Co., Inc. v. Hardin, Commissioner of Revenues, 205 Ark. 501, 169 S. W. 2d 584 (1943).\nThis case is distinguishable from Republic Steel v. McCastlain, 240 Ark. 979, 403 S. W. 2d 90 (1966). In that case, Republic shipped reinforcing steel bars from its manufacturing plant in Chicago to Arkansas. Here, Republic processed the bars into a finished product and used them in building certain improvements for the United States Government under a construction contract held by Republic Steel. The opinion emphasizes the fact that Republic was acting in two separate and distinct capacities \u2014 as a manufacturer, it made the steel bars; as a contractor, it used them to perform its contract. As a manufacturer, Republic transferred its title in the steel bars to itself or its agent in the capacity of a contractor.\nIn this case, there was no dual capacity transaction. This was strictly a situation in which Georgia Pacific, for example, desired to remodel some offices in Crossett. In Oregon it owns a plant where panelling is manufactured. Georgia Pacific sent for a quantity of panelling and installed it in its offices. There the transaction ended. In this situation we hold Georgia Pacific is not liable for the use tax.\nAffirmed in part and reversed in part.\nFoglemaN and Byrd, JJ., would reverse as to both sales tax and use tax.\nOn motion of B. Bryan Larey, presently Commissioner of Revenues, he is substituted as appellee in lieu of his predecessor, Doria McCastlain.", "type": "majority", "author": "Lyle Brown, Justice." }, { "text": "JohN A. FoglemaN, Justice,\ndissenting. I respectfully dissent from that part of the majority opinion affirming the lower court on the assessment of sales or gross receipts tax. It seems obvious to me that there must be a transfer of title or possession before there is a tax. In sustaining this tax, the majority rely upon a statement from Cook v. Southwest Hotels, Inc., 213 Ark. 140, 209 S. W. 2d 469, admitted hy appellee in its brief to he dictum. It is interesting to note that in this case holding that hotels were not liable for the tax on food consumed hy employees, the court said that tax liabilities do not spring from inexact language, nor do they attach by construction, \u2014 rules that the majority is overlooking.\nOn the contrary, a reading of the statutes indicates that no tax was imposed upon a transaction such as this. Ark. Stat. Ann \u00a7 84-1903 (Repl. 1960), provides:4\u2018There is hereby levied.an excise tax of,three per centum (3%) upon the gross proceeds or gross receipts derived from all sales to any person * # Ohvioiisly the tax is clearly upon gross proceeds from sales. But these words are .defined in the statute (quoted only insofar as applicable here):\n\u201c84-1902. Definitions. \u2014 The- following words and phrases shall, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning, have, when used in this act [\u00a7\u00a7 84-1901 \u2014 84-1904, 84-1906 \u2014 84-1919], the following meanings:\n(a) Person: The term \u2018person\u2019 includes any individual, company, partnership, joint venture, apd joint agreement, association (mutual or otherwise), corporation, estate, trust, business trust, receiver, or trustee appointed by any State or Federal Court or otherwise, syndicate, this State, any county, city, municipality, school district, or any other political subdivision of the State or group. or combination acting as a unit, in the plural or singular number.\n# * *\n(c) Sale: The term \u2018sale\u2019 is hereby declared to mean .the transfer of either the title or possession, except in the case of leases or rentals., for a valuable consideration of tangible personal property, regardless of the manner, method, instrumentality, or device by which such transfer is accomplished. The term \u2018sale\u2019 is also declared to include the exchange, barter, lease, or rental of tangible personal property. [Supp. 1965.]\n(d) Gross Receipts \u2014 Gross Proceeds: The term \u2018gross receipts\u2019 or \u2018gross proceeds\u2019 means the total ampunt of consideration for the sale of tangible personal property and such services as are herein specifically provided for, whether the consideration is in money or otherwise, without any deduction therefrom on account of the cost of the property sold, labor service performed, interest paid, losses or any expenses whatsoever.\nThe term \u2018gross proceeds\u2019 or \u2018gross receipts\u2019 shall include the value of any good, wares, merchandise, or property withdrawn or used from the established business or from the stock in trade of the established reserves for consumption or use in such business or by any other person.\u201d\nThis clearly indicates that the tax is levied only upon the gross proceeds from sales to persons. When the definition of gross proceeds or gross receipts is read into the section levying the tax, one cannot read out the words following \u2014 \u201cderived from all sales to any person\u201d \u2014 nor can. one department of the same corporation as the seller qualify as a \u201cperson\u201d. Consequently, there can be no .tax where there is no transfer of either the title or possession of the property involved. If the legislature had intended .the effect given by the majority, then they would have chang\u00e9d the definition of the word \u201csale\u201d to cover this transaction.\nWhile it might be argued that the literal application of the terms .of the act make it ambiguous, this favors the taxpayer, not the taxing authority.\nThis tax, like the former inheritance tax, is an excise tax or privilege tax. Hardin v. Vestal, 204 Ark. 492, 162 S.W. 2d 923. As such, it is a special tax. McDaniel v. Byrkett, 120 Ark. 295, 179 S.W. 491. The laws imposing such a tax are to he construed strictly against the government and in favor of the taxpayer. McDaniel v. Byrkett, supra ; McCain v. Crossett Lbr. Co., 206 Ark. 51, 174 S. W. 2d 114 ; Scurlock v. City of Springdale, 224 Ark. 408, 273 S. W. 2d 551. Tax acts are to he construed most strongly against the sovereign and most liberally in the taxpayer\u2019s favor. Thompson v. Chadwick, 221 Ark. 720, 255 S. W. 2d 687.\nA tax cannot be imposed except by express words indicating the purpose to do so. Wiseman v. Arkansas Utilities Co., 191 Ark. 854, 88 S. W. 2d 81 ; Cook v. Ark. Missouri Power Corp., 209 Ark. 750, 192 S.W. 2d 210 ; Cook v. Ayers, 214 Ark. 308, 215 S. W. 2d 705 ; Commissioner of Revenues v. Arkansas State Highway Comm., 232 Ark. 255, 337 S.W. 2d 665 ; Cheney v. Tolliver, 234 Ark. 973, 356 S.W. 2d 636. The express purpose to tax must be so clear that no reasonable mind should conclude the intent was otherwise. Cook v. Southwest Hotels, 213 Ark. 140, 209 S.W. 2d 469.\nWhere there is any ambiguity or doubt it must be resolved in favor of the taxpayer and against the taxing power. Wiseman v. Arkansas Utilities Co., 191 Ark. 854, 88 S. W. 2d 81 ; McCain v. Crossett Lumber Co., 206 Ark. 51, 174 S. W. 2d 114 ; Cook v. Wofford, 209 Ark. 824, 192 S.W. 2d 550 ; Cook v. Ayers, 214 Ark. 308, 215 S.W. 2d 705 ; Commissioner of Revenues v. Arkansas State Highway Commission, 232 Ark. 255, 337 S. W. 2d 665. All ambiguities or doubts respecting liability for the tax must be resolved for the taxpayer. City of Little Rock v. Ark. Corporation Commission, 209 Ark. 18, 19 S.W. 2d 382 ; Moses v. McLeod, 207 Ark. 252, 180 S. W. 2d 110.\nEven if the general assembly intended to do what the majority says they did, we cannot say so unless we can say that their language necessarily leads to that conclusion. Hardin v. Ft. Smith, Couch & Bedding. Co., 202 Ark. 814, 152 S. W. 2d 1015. The courts are not at liberty to imply a meaning tp a tax act which is not clearly stated. Scurlock v. City of Springdale, 224 Ark. 408, 273 S.W. 2d 551. As was said by this court in McLeod v. Commercial National Bank of Little Rock, 206 Ark. 1086, 178 S.W. 2d 496 :\n\u201cIf it be thought that, at most, the legislative purpose as expressed by the words employed is ambiguous, still the holding must be adverse to appellant because doubt in such cases is invariably resolved in favor of the taxpayer.\u201d\nThese rules were applied in holding that the rental of automobiles was not subject to this tax, the transfer of possession not being exclusive but only temporary. U-Drive-Em Service Co. v. State, 205 Ark. 501, 169 S. W. 2d 584.\nWhile a law '\u2022\u25a0should be construed to give some meaning to all its parts, if possible, the construction must not be inconsistent with the language used therein. Cook v. Arkansas State Rice Milling Co., 213 Ark. 396, 210 S. W. 2d 511.\nIt should be noted that the legislature must have defined \u201cgross proceeds or gross receipts from sales\u201d as they defined \u201cgross receipts\u201d in order to reach the result attained by the majority, a construction inconsistent with the language of the act.\nThis court has expressly held that in view of the rules that tax acts are to be construed in favor of the taxpayer, we cannot, read into it matters adverse to the taxpayer. Morley v. Pitts, 217 Ark. 755, 233 S. W. 2d 539. To reach the conclusion in the majority opinion it is necessary in these circumstances to either read out of \u00a7 84-1903 the words \u2018 \u2018 derived from all sales to any person or read the same words into the definition of \u201cgross proceeds\u201d or \u201cgross receipts\u201d. Certainly we should apply the same rule as was applied on the attempt to read something into the statute.\nI submit that in affirming the court as to the sales tax, the majority is giving the act a liberal construction in favor of the taxing power, is resolving ambiguities against the taxpayer, is reaching a conclusion to which the language of the legislature does not necessarily lead, and reading words out of the literal terms of the act. I would reverse the decree of the trial court on both taxes.\nI am authorized to state that Byrd, J., joins in thh dissent.", "type": "dissent", "author": "JohN A. FoglemaN, Justice," } ], "attorneys": [ "Griffin Smith, for appellant.", "Lyle Williams and Tom Tanner, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Georgia Pacific Corp. v. B. Bryan Larry, Commissioner of Revenues\n5-4188\n413 S. W. 2d 868\nOpinion delivered. April 24, 1967\nGriffin Smith, for appellant.\nLyle Williams and Tom Tanner, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0428-01", "first_page_order": 450, "last_page_order": 457 }