Title: AMP, Inc. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Dissenting Opinion)

State: pennsylvania

Issuer: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Document:

[J-147-2003] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT AMP INCORPORATED, Appellant v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : : 171 MAP 2002 Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court entered on 10/24/02 at No. 837 FR 1998 which dismissed exceptions to the Order entered on 2/22/02 which affirmed the Order of the Board of Finance and Revenue entered on 7/20/98 at No. A-84415 ARGUED: December 2, 2003 DISSENTING OPINION MR. JUSTICE NIGRO Decided: June 22, 2004 I respectfully dissent as I believe that the packaging equipment at issue in this case falls within the General Assembly's definition of "manufacture" as "packaging . . . passing to the ultimate consumer," 72 P.S. § 7201(c), and that AMP’s utilization of that equipment in its operations constituted a “direct use” pursuant to 72 P.S. § 7201(o)(4)(B)(i). Unlike the majority, I simply cannot accept an interpretation of the manufacturing exclusion that excludes from taxation equipment used by an assembler of component parts to package its completed product for sale to a retail consumer, while simultaneously permitting the taxation of packaging equipment utilized by the manufacturer of one of the retail product's component parts to prepare its completed product for delivery to its ultimate consumer, i.e., the assembler. Moreover, I disagree with the Commonwealth Court’s conclusion that the small geographical distance and time delay between AMP’s assembly of its products and its packaging of those products at the Distribution Center was sufficient [J-147-2003] - 2 to remove the equipment used in the packaging process from the scope of “direct use” as set forth in 72 P.S. § 7201(o)(4)(B)(i) and interpreted in 61 Pa. Code § 32.32(a)(i).