Opinion ID: 1927202
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sales of Spark Plugs and Roller Skates.

Text: The same contract between Globe-Union and Sears which covered batteries also included spark plugs and roller skates. Sears agreed to purchase 75 percent of its annual requirement of spark plugs and roller skates from Globe-Union. As previously noted, all skates and spark plugs sold by Globe-Union were manufactured in Wisconsin, and many  of the Sears requisitions for those products were filled from the Milwaukee office. However, some of the requisitions were filled from stocks of skates and spark plugs which were kept in warehouses outside of Wisconsin. Globe-Union sold its roller skates to a large number of customers other than Sears. Purchasers included department stores, hardware stores, and toy shops. Orders for most of such customers were placed at and filled from the Milwaukee plant, but some were filled from inventories kept by Globe-Union at its other warehouses. Skate sales to purchasers other than Sears were handled through independent manufacturers' agents. These manufacturers' agents were independent contractors who were paid on a commission basis. During the period in question Globe-Union sold spark plugs to only two customers other than Sears: Skelly Oil Company and Cities Service Oil Company. Orders from these two companies were placed at and filled from the Milwaukee office. The foregoing facts relating to the nature of Globe-Union's sales are not in serious dispute; the legal consequences which flow from these facts, however, are significantly in issue. We consider that the determination of where the sales in question were made presents primarily a question of law. In our review of the conclusions of the board of tax appeals, there is applicable what this court recently stated in Pabst v. Department of Taxation (1963), 19 Wis. (2d) 313, 323, 120 N. W. (2d) 77: Nevertheless, in fields in which an agency has particular competence or expertise, the courts should not substitute their judgment for the agency's application of a particular statute to the found facts if a rational basis exists in law for the agency's interpretation and it does not conflict with the statute's legislative history, prior decisions of this court, or constitutional prohibitions.