Court Opinion

ID: 9650266
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 15:28:05.6935+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:19.327685
License: Public Domain

MANDERINO, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent. The appellant is entitled to an exemption from the Pennsylvania Use Tax. Section 201(o )(4)(B) of the Tax Reform Code of 1971 provides that tangible personal property used or consumed in any of the operations of constructing facilities which are directly used to produce or deliver a public service are not subject to tax. The materials and tools involved in this appeal are tangible personal property and since they were used in constructing cooling towers for *228Philadelphia Electric Corporation they come within the ambit of this exemption.
The parties stipulated, that this same Section would exclude from tax these same tools, materials and supplies if the public utility utilized these items in the identical manner as appellant utilized them. (R-12a)
The majority errs when it says that this appellant must be taxed for these items because they were not affixed. The last paragraph of Section 201 (o )(4)(B) does list exceptions to the granting of the exemption, however these exceptions must be read in conjunction with the previous language granting the exemption. The interpretation of the exceptions employed by the majority requiring all materials or supplies to be “affixed” strips the general exemption of any rational meaning.
Additionally, the legislature carefully stated in this same section that “tools and equipment used but not installed in the maintenance of facilities” are subject to tax. If the legislature had meant this same standard to apply to tools and equipment utilized in construction activities, it would have so stated in the same unambiguous language.