![]() The circuit court found that The Daily Press' business operations can be divided into three "components" for purposes of deciding which items of tangible personal property are taxable by the City as "achinery and tools" pursuant to the provisions of Code § 58.1-1101(A)(2). The parties agree that The Daily Press is engaged in a manufacturing business. In 1997, the City's commissioner of the revenue reclassified The Daily Press from the status of a "processor" to that of a "manufacturer." That reclassification is not at issue in this case. applied for correction of alleged erroneous assessments of personal property taxes made by the City of Newport News for the tax years 19-1996 and a refund of the taxes paid pursuant to those assessments in the amount of $273,928 plus interest from the dates of payment. Finding error in the circuit court's judgment, we will reverse that judgment. The circuit court concluded that the "transformation of blank paper into a readable format" as well as "the transformation of an unrelated collection of separate facts or impressions into a story of interest, promotive of understanding or knowledge" is each "an essential or indispensable function in the manufacturing operation." Holding that the "achinery or tools used in the preparatory stages of collecting and organizing the information to be printed are both necessary and used in connection with the machinery actually used in the manufacturing process," the court denied the publisher's amended application for the correction of erroneous assessments of property taxes. The issue in this appeal is whether certain tangible personal property of a newspaper publisher is "achinery and tools" and thus taxable by a locality pursuant to Code § 58.1-1101(A)(2), or "apital" that is classified as "intangible personal property" under Code § 58.1-1101 and subject to taxation solely by the Commonwealth pursuant to Code § 58.1-1100. Present: HASSELL, C.J., and LACY, KEENAN, KOONTZ, KINSER, and LEMONS, JJ., and CARRICO, S.J. Jackson, Chief Deputy City Attorney, for appellee. Shebelskie Kathleen McCormickl Hunton & Williams, on briefs), Richmond, for appellants.Īllen L. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |