Court Opinion

ID: 9654735
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 18:49:02.413414+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:12.982205
License: Public Domain

*852HYDE, J.
(concurring). — I concur in the opinion of ConMing, J. herein. The proposed refunds to customers will not even be paid out of gross receipts of any future tax periods. They will instead be paid out of the fund plaintiff already has accumulated. That is the money it collected in 1946, 1947 and 1948 and has held ever since; the money which plaintiff voluntarily segregated, impounded and kept in a separate bank account and which equaled the difference between the [838] lower rates plaintiff was actually paying and the original higher rates its suppliers were claiming the right to charge. The fact that taxes were paid on these segregated funds as gross receipts in 1946,1947 and 1948 has no bearing whatever on the determination of what are gross receipts in subsequent periods. I think we should say the true meaning of the ordinance is that this determination must be made upon the facts as to plaintiff’s receipts for each tax period and cannot be affected by what occurred during prior tax periods.
Hollingsworth, Dalton and Leedy, JJ., concur.