Court Opinion

ID: 9636920
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 14:49:34.935559+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:51.401040
License: Public Domain

DISSENTING OPINION BY
Senior Judge KELLEY.
I respectfully dissent.
In this case, the Company and the City entered into the following relevant stipulations of fact: (1) the Company’s principal place of business was formerly located in *893East Hempfield Township, Lancaster County, and it is presently located in West Hempfield Township, Lancaster County; (2) the Company performed construction work as a general contractor in the City from 1999 to 2001, constructing the Keystone Office Building located at Forster and 6th Streets; (3) during the three-year Keystone Office Building construction project, the Company maintained a leased trailer for use as a field office for that project; (4) the field office contained a telephone which was used by the field superintendent for this project; (5) the superintendent did not allow the use of the trailer by subcontractors, and all meetings with subcontractors were held at locations at or near the project; (6) mail for the superintendent was delivered to the Company’s office in Lancaster County, and all of the general management, accounting estimating and other administrative functions were conducted at the office in Lancaster County; and (7) on the Company’s application for a Business and Mercantile License that was filed with the City1, the Company listed its business address as “Third & North Streets, Harrisburg, PA 17101”, and its mailing address as “P.O. Box 4644, Lancaster, PA 17604”.
As noted by the Majority, the City’s Ordinance 31 defines taxable “business” activities in the City, in pertinent part, as follows:
(a) BUSINESS: Any business activity carried on or exercised for gain or profit in the City of Harrisburg, including but not limited to, the sale of merchandise or other tangible personalty or the performance of services.... As to those taxpayers having a place of business other than their principal one within the City of Harrisburg, business shall include all activities carried on within the City and those carried on outside the City attributable to the place of business within the City.
Ordinance 31, § 355.03(a) (emphasis added).2
Based on the foregoing stipulations of fact, to my mind, it is clear that the Company maintained a “base of operations” within the City which was subject to its business privilege tax. As noted by the trial court:
[W]e found that the [Company] in this case did, in fact, maintain a base of operations within the [City] for the three years in question and therefore was not entitled to a tax refund for those years. We found that the job trailer was a bona fide field office that was used to oversee and control the day-to-day operations at *894the Keystone Office Building construction project. The job trailer conferred upon the [Company] the ability to contact and to be contacted at the site, the benefit of direct oversight of the project, and the goodwill and exposure gained by virtue of doing business within the Harrisburg community.
Trial Court Opinion at 6.
Thus, the fact that the Company maintained a principal place of business outside the City, in Lancaster County, in no way alters the conclusion that the Company maintained a “base of operations” within the City subject to the tax for the gross receipts attributable to this “base of operations”. The imposition of this tax is proper even if the “base of operations” in the City was not used for, or did not relate to, any other Company projects that were completed outside of the City.3 As a result, based on the provisions of Ordinance 31, I believe that the City properly levied its business privilege tax on the Company totaling $27,346.88 for the Company’s business activities that were attributable to its “base of operations” within the City for the years 1999, 2000 and 2001.
Accordingly, I would affirm the trial court’s order in this case.

. Section 5-715.8 of the City’s Codified Ordinances provides, in pertinent part:
(a) Any person desiring to conduct, or to continue to conduct, any business within the City shall file with the Business Administrator or designee an application for a Business Privilege and Mercantile License .... The license issued shall be conspicuously posted in the place of business for which the license is issued. In cases where more than one place of business is conducted, a separate license shall be issued for each place of business....
(c) Regardless of whether or not a license is procured, the tax required to be paid pursuant to this chapter is due if a person operates a business within the City.

. As noted by the Majority, Ordinance 31 was enacted by the City pursuant to the provisions of the Local Tax Enabling Act (LTEA), Act of December 31, 1965, as amended, 53 P.S. §§ 6901 — 6924.

. See, e.g., Philadelphia Eagles Football Club, Inc. v. City of Philadelphia, 573 Pa. 189, 231 n. 43, 823 A.2d 108, 134 n. 43 (2003) ("[T]he City also asserts that Gilberti v. City of Pittsburgh, 511 Pa. 100, 511 A.2d 1321 (1986), supports the imposition of the [business privilege tax] on 100% of the gross receipts of the Football Club, regardless of where the receipts were earned. However, Gilberti did not, as the City suggests, enact a per se rule allowing a city to tax 100% of the gross receipts of any business domiciled within its jurisdiction. Rather, in Gilberti, this Court concluded that a taxing jurisdiction is not required to ignore the contribution provided by a business maintaining a base of operations within the taxing jurisdiction.... ”) (emphasis in original); Gilberti, 511 Pa. 100, 108-109, 511 A.2d 1321, 1326 (1986) ("[Mjaintaining a business office in the City is an exercise of a privilege ‘within the limits’ of the taxing district, and, thus, a tax can thereupon be levied. In the present case, the City’s Tax, labeled a tax on the ‘privilege’ of doing business in the City, operates in such a manner as to, in effect, tax revenues from certain transactions that occur wholly outside the City. This is so because the amount of the Tax is determined by the assessment of a millage rate against the gross receipts of the business, and such receipts include income derived from services performed at locations outside the City limits. Nevertheless, the tax remains one that is levied only upon a privilege exercised within the City, to wit maintenance of a business officé, and the fact that the amount of tax is dependent upon the taxpayer’s gross receipts, including receipts from services performed outside the City, does not undermine the legitimacy of the tax.... Indeed, having a place of business within the City enables the taxpayer to have a base of operations from which to manage, direct, and control business activities occurring both inside and outside the City limits. Further, the in-City office provides a place from which to solicit business, accept communications, conduct meetings, store supplies, and perform office work. All of these activities are, in the usual course, necessary to any business operation. This is so irrespective of whether the business performs services at job sites outside of the City.’’) (emphasis added); Township of Lower Merion v. QED, Inc., 738 A.2d 1066, 1071 n. 6 (Pa.Cmwlth.1999) (”[W]here a company has more than one base of operations, however, Section 8 of the LTEA, 53 P.S. § 6908, has been interpreted by the courts to provide that the taxpayer must receive credit for gross receipts taxes paid to another municipality where the base of operations exists and from the receipts generated by that office. See Gilberti, (Township of Lower Merion v. Qed, Inc., 738 A.2d 1066 (Pa.Cmwlth.1999), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 565 Pa. 680, 775 A.2d 811 (2001)].”).