Court Opinion

ID: 9825169
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 12:14:09.087551+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:29.922475
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
In deference to the insistence of the Assistant Attorney General we will delineate some portions of the evidence more specifically.
In our original opinion we stated “the taxpayer procured a license to operate each of his sawmills.” It appears that in the case of the smaller mills which were owned by the appellee the licenses were issued in the name of the persons who were employed to manage the operation of the mills. As to this the record discloses.:
“Q (To Mr. Holt) In every instance where you owned the mill a license would be taken out in their name and you would pay them back?”
“A Yes, I would reimburse them when we had a settlement if they had taken out the license.”
With reference to other methods of securing rough lumber for the planing mills, Mr. Holt testified:
“I owned seven complete mills, and this is the way I would operate. A man would come along and say ‘You’ve got a tract of timber up here. How about me cutting it ?’ and I’d say ‘All right, have you got a mill’, and he’d say ‘Yes, but I’ve got no mules’ and I’d say, ‘Well, I’ll get the mules for you’ and he’d say ‘Will you haul the lumber?’ and I’d say ‘Yes, I’ll pay you so many dollars a thousand. Go on up there and cut the lumber.’ And he would go there and I’d never see the place. Another man would come and say ‘I’ve got a mill and you’ve got a little tract of timber by my house. How about me cutting it?’ and I’d say ‘All right, go ahead and when you get it cut out I’ll haul it for you.’ And then in these other cases I would put my own mill in charge of other people.”
We stated also in the original opinion that: “In its finished state it was, for the most part, sold at wholesale.” By this we meant the sales were made after the rough *108lumber had been processed through the planing mill.
The other questions upon which insistence is made in the application for a rehearing have been treated in our original opinion and a further discussion would lead only to a repetition.
We still entertain the view that the taxpayer was not a wholesale dealer within the purview of the statute in question.
The application for rehearing is overruled.