{ "id": 1880908, "name": "James C. PLEDGER, Director Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration v. Coy Mac BOYD d/b/a Turf Plantation", "name_abbreviation": "Pledger v. Boyd", "decision_date": "1990-12-10", "docket_number": "90-236", "first_page": "91", "last_page": "94", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "304 Ark. 91" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "799 S.W.2d 807" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 2-21-102", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "weight": 2, "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(3)" }, { "page": "(2)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "204 Ark. 492", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1444105 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1942, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/204/0492-01" ] }, { "cite": "204 Ark. 354", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1444163 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1942, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/204/0354-01" ] }, { "cite": "748 S.W.2d 128", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "295 Ark. 223", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1893766 ], "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/295/0223-01" ] }, { "cite": "763 S.W.2d 70", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "case_ids": [ 1891406, 1891407 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1989, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/297/0394-01", "/ark/297/0477-01" ] }, { "cite": "297 Ark. 394", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1891406 ], "year": 1989, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/297/0394-01" ] }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 26-52-401", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "weight": 3, "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(18)(C)" }, { "page": "(18)(C)" }, { "page": "(18)(F)(iv)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 401, "char_count": 5588, "ocr_confidence": 0.901, "pagerank": { "raw": 9.792706160097969e-08, "percentile": 0.5325435961710508 }, "sha256": "ba4807b0d5f69590f2e7c1fbf9dcd0452d5bd6974d8e5ea0aff716667cc9a635", "simhash": "1:fa863162e00f0f15", "word_count": 932 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:15:14.712931+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "James C. PLEDGER, Director Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration v. Coy Mac BOYD d/b/a Turf Plantation" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Robert H. Dudley, Justice.\nAppellant, Director of the Department of Finance and Administration, audited appellee\u2019s business and determined that the appellee taxpayer owed $8,337.26 in delinquent taxes and $1,989.78 in accrued interest. The assessment was based upon the director\u2019s determination that the taxpayer had not paid sales taxes on the sale of bermuda grass sod. The taxpayer paid the tax and interest under protest, and filed suit to challenge the director\u2019s application of the gross receipts tax to the sale of grass sod. The chancellor ruled that the taxpayer was a farmer and that his sale of sod was exempted under Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 26-52-401(18)(C) (Supp. 1989) as the sale of a raw product from the farm, directly to the consumer. The director appeals. We reverse the chancellor\u2019s decision, sustain the assessment, and remand the case for proceedings consistent with this opinion.\nThe taxpayer owns a farm on which he grows soybeans, cotton, wheat, and bermuda sod. The director did not assess the tax on sales of soybeans, cotton, and wheat, but did assess the tax on the sale of bermuda sod. Ninety-five percent of the sod is sold to landscapers, contractors, and nurseries. Five percent of the sales are to golf courses, country clubs, or homeowners. The taxpayer does not have a store or office at the farm and delivers the sod directly to the customers.\nArk. Code Ann. \u00a7 26-52-401(18)(C) specifically exempts from the sales tax the following:\nGross receipts or gross proceeds derived from the sale of raw products from the farm, orchard, or garden, where the sale is made by the producer of the raw products directly to the consumer and user;\nHowever, the above exemption \u201cshall not be construed to exempt sales by florist and nurserymen.\u201d (Emphasis added.) Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 26-52-401(18)(F)(iv) (Supp. 1989).\nSince 1941 the director and his predecessors in office have consistently interpreted the statute to include sod as a nursery product. Further, in 1987, the director issued a regulation stating: \u201cthe term \u2018agriculture\u2019 means operations engaged in and for the production of food or fiber.\u201d\nThe right to a tax exemption must be established beyond a reasonable doubt by the claimant. Ragland v. General Tire & Rubber Co., 297 Ark. 394, 763 S.W.2d 70 (1989). Tax exemption statutes must be strictly construed against the exemption, and any doubt suggests that the exemption should be denied. Id. The interpretation given a statute by the agency charged with its execution is highly persuasive, and while it is not conclusive, neither should it be overturned unless it is clearly wrong. Arkansas Contractors Licensing Bd. v. Butler Constr. Co., 295 Ark. 223, 748 S.W.2d 128 (1988). That is especially true where the agency\u2019s construction has been observed and acted upon for a long period of time. Walnut Grove Dist. No. 6 v. County Bd. of Educ., 204 Ark. 354, 162 S.W.2d 64 (1942). Exemption cases are reviewed de novo in this court. Applying the foregoing burdens, standards, and rules of interpretation we conclude that the taxpayer should have been determined to be a nurseryman as a matter of law and, thus, not entitled to the raw farm products exemption.\nWebster\u2019s Third New International Dictionary defines nursery as \u201can area where trees, shrubs, or plants are grown for transplanting, for use as stocks for budding and grafting, or for sale.\u201d Here, the bermuda sod was grown for transplanting and for sale. Thus, the taxpayer\u2019s operation fits within the definition of a nursery. In Hardin v. Vestal, 204 Ark. 492, 162 S.W.2d 923 (1942), we held that an exemption for raw farm products did not constitute a denial of equal protection to florists and nurserymen. In doing so, we wrote:\nIt is true that all grow from the soil, but the products grown by farmers are entirely separate and distinct from the products grown by florists and nurserymen.\nTherefore, even though the business of the florist and nurserymen are subdivisions of agriculture, it is not difficult to distinguish their business from that of the farmer. Farming \u2014 the growing of grain, cotton, livestock, poultry and other produce \u2014 is absolutely essential to the life of the nation, while the growing of flowers and plants and of fruit trees and shrubs is not.\nThe same can certainly be said about the growing of bermuda sod.\nThe Nursery Fraud Act of 1919 defines \u201cnursery\u201d as a place where \u201cnursery stock\u201d is propagated. Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 2-21-102(3) (1987). In a sentence which is nebulous, at best, the act seems to define \u201cnursery stock\u201d to include \u201cplants and plant products for propagation.\u201d Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 2-21-102(2) (1987). However the definition also can be read to include only \u201cseeds of . . . plants and plant products for propagation.\u201d We need not waste time on the meaning of the sentence because, however the Nursery Fraud Act definition is read, we do not consider it to govern this tax exemption case.\nIn sum, the taxpayer has not established beyond a reasonable doubt that the exemption for the sale of raw farm products applies to the sale of bermuda sod to be used as fairways and lawns.\nReversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.", "type": "majority", "author": "Robert H. Dudley, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "John Theis, Robert L. Jones, William Keadle, Cora Gentry, David Kaufman, Malcolm Bobo, and Beth B. Carson, by: Rick L. Pruett, for appellant.", "Barrett, Wheatley, Smith & Deacon, by: Paul D. McNeill, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "James C. PLEDGER, Director Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration v. Coy Mac BOYD d/b/a Turf Plantation\n90-236\n799 S.W.2d 807\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered December 10, 1990\nJohn Theis, Robert L. Jones, William Keadle, Cora Gentry, David Kaufman, Malcolm Bobo, and Beth B. Carson, by: Rick L. Pruett, for appellant.\nBarrett, Wheatley, Smith & Deacon, by: Paul D. McNeill, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0091-01", "first_page_order": 123, "last_page_order": 126 }