Title: Hancock-Nelson Mercan. Co. v. Commissioner of Tax.
Citation: 215 N.W.2d 620
Docket Number: 44325
State: Minnesota
Issuer: Minnesota Supreme Court
Date: February 15, 1974

215 N.W.2d 620 (1974) HANCOCK-NELSON MERCANTILE COMPANY, Relator, v. COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION, Respondent. No. 44325. Supreme Court of Minnesota. February 15, 1974. Dorsey, Marquart, Windhorst, West &amp; Halladay, John W. Windhorst, Jr., and Michael Trucano, Minneapolis, for relator. *621 Warren Spannaus, Atty. Gen., Gerald G. Grieman, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept. of Taxation, St. Paul, for respondent. Heard before KNUTSON, C. J., and OTIS, PETERSON, TODD, and SCOTT, JJ., and considered and decided by the court. SCOTT, Justice. Certiorari to review an order of the Tax Court affirming the order of the commissioner of taxation which held that wholesale pricelist catalogs are not publications within the meaning of Minn.St.1967, § 297 A. 25, subd. 1(i).[1] We affirm. The facts are before us by a stipulation entered March 24, 1971: The sole issue before us is whether printed, wholesale pricelist catalogs distributed to a defined group of persons are "publications" under Minn.St.1967, § 297 A. 25, subd. 1(i), and therefore exempt from the Minnesota sales and use tax. We hold that they are not. *622 Minn.St.1967, § 297 A. 25, subd. 1(i), in exempting various items from taxation, provided, in pertinent part: The inclusion in "publication" of a legal newspaper as defined in Minn.St.1965, § 331.02, is merely exemplary and inserted for purposes of clarification, rather than as a limitation upon the scope of the exemption. Inasmuch as we lack a precise definition of the term "publication," it becomes incumbent upon this court to so delineate the term as to best implement the intent of the legislature. Relator essentially contends that the statute is very broad and thus exempts any publication regardless of its content. The publication here is not an advertisement appearing in a general dissemination of news to the public, but rather is a catalog designed to serve only those who have specifically contracted to receive it. It is produced in Wisconsin, sold to relator for a valuable consideration, and then distributed by relator to some 600 retailer-customers by mail or delivery truck. These 600 retail grocers are further under a contractual agreement to keep the information contained in the catalogs confidential. The face of the pricelist catalogs bears the legend in capital letters: "THIS IS A CONFIDENTIAL PRICE LIST. YOUR FAILURE TO KEEP THIS CONFIDENTIAL AUTOMATICALLY ELIMINATES YOUR NAME FROM OUR MAILING LIST." Black, Law Dictionary (Rev. 4 ed.), p. 1396, defines "publication" as follows: While it is true that the word "publication" varies depending upon the legal context, the main purpose of informing the general public is always present in its basic definition. Therefore, these catalogs cannot satisfy the definition of a "publication." The fact that they are issued regularly "at average intervals not exceeding three months" is not alone sufficient to qualify them for exemption from use taxation. The order of the Tax Court is hereby affirmed. Affirmed. SHERAN, C. J., not having been a member of this court at the time of the argument and submission, took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. [1] Amendments enacted since the commissioner's order do not bear on the issues here presented and our decision would apply under the present statute, Minn.St. 297 A. 25, subd. 1(i).