Opinion ID: 1700935
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: On the Cross-Appeal

Text: The Commissioner claims error in the finding below ordering a refund based on the reduced rates applicable to purchase of a machine, part or attachment thereto, used in a mining operation. We view this issue as much more difficult than those addressed on the appeal. At first blush, it hardly seems likely that the legislature could have contemplated a sack of fertilizer and a drum of diesel fuel as a machine for purposes of qualifying for the reduced rate of taxes. But, as we have seen in Newbury Manufacturing Co., our inquiry cannot be as superficial as our first blush reaction. The office they serve, and not the material of which they are made, controls their status. Indeed, the very rationale by which we reject Robertson's claim of wholesale sales supports the mine operator's alternative contention that the explosive materials fit the statutory definition of machine: It is the preparatory means of recovery of the mineralnot an ingredient or component part of the finished product as contemplated by the statute. Basically, then, two separate means generally are employed in producing coal by strip miningexplosives and earth-moving equipment. Under the offices used test, both equally qualify for the reduced tax rate. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial Court is affirmed. AFFIRMED. BLOODWORTH, MADDOX, FAULKNER, ALMON, EMBRY and BEATTY, JJ., concur. TORBERT, C. J., and SHORES, J., dissent.