Opinion ID: 1320715
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: scrap metal and damaged raw material.

Text: The evidence before the State Board tended to show that AMP's Greensboro plant generated substantial amounts of scrap metal during the course of a normal work week. For example, the witness Cole testified that the slitting, pancaking, stamping and metal plating processes all produced substantial amounts of scrap. Also, Cole pointed out that when a coil of brass or copper (raw material) was damaged during one of the various handling operations (e. g., if a coil was dropped, the impact would dent the metal edges) it became useless since such a damaged coil could not be processed through the forming dies. It appears, however, that the vast majority of scrap resulted from numerous malfunctions occurring during the manufacturing process, i. e., the slitting, pancaking, etc. The witness Beck testified that during the years 1964 through 1968 approximately one-half of every pound of raw material received at AMP's Greensboro plant was reduced to scrap from all of the above listed causes. He further testified that the mills supplying AMP with this raw material regularly repurchased this scrap at published prices roughly equivalent to 40% of initial raw material costs. Under G.S. § 105-294 all property must be appraised at its true value in money, which is defined to mean the amount of cash or receivables the property and subjects can be transmuted into when sold in such manner as such property and subjects are usually sold.  As to the approximately 40,000 pounds of brass and copper scrap accumulated by AMP during the course of a normal week of operations, we believe the scrap prices offered by the supplying mills, to whom such scrap was usually and freely sold by AMP, would be equivalent to the true value in money of such material for purposes of ad valorem taxation. Therefore, if Guilford County had attempted to assess this property at book value then it is clear that AMP produced sufficient evidence to show that such assessment substantially exceeded the true value in money of this property. But, as previously noted, there is no evidence in this record that AMP's inventories on 1 January of the pertinent years included any of these type properties, i. e., true scrap metals. Perhaps AMP had no such property on hand at these dates because it regularly shipped out the accumulated scrap each week. Therefore, the fact that AMP carried its burden of proof as to this property is of no consequence. Even if AMP had had such inventories on hand, its value, as compared to the other inventories, would be insignificant, since AMP never allowed over 40,000 pounds of scrap to accumulate at its Greensboro plant.