Court Opinion

ID: 9604754
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:26:15.377432+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:07:20.517846
License: Public Domain

POFF, J.,
dissenting.
*821It is true, of course, that the commodity the taxpayer sells could not be produced unless “nature takes its course”. It is also true, however, that the commodity is not the product of the laws of nature. Rather, as an offspring of parents of different genetic characteristics, it is a genetic amalgam with traits and characteristics distinctly different from those of either parent. The customary course of nature ends at birth. Thereafter, the taxpayer applies a disciplined system of scientific practices and procedures which manipulate environmental and biological factors and divert growth and development from the course nature normally takes. The end result is a new product, wholly unlike the unrefined raw materials from which it was derived, one which meets the unique specifications of a market which, though highly specialized, is international in scope.
In my view, the taxpayer’s operation, “industrial” by any fair definition of the word, constitutes a method of “processing” which produces a commodity “more marketable and useful” than the original raw materials. Applying the principles of Commonwealth v. Orange-Madison Coop., 220 Va. 655, 657-58, 261 S.E.2d 532, 533-34 (1980), I would affirm the judgment of the trial court.
COMPTON, J., joins in dissent.