Court Opinion

ID: 9669114
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:39:45.904329+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:52.382777
License: Public Domain

THOMAS, Judge,
dissenting.
I dissent, and I also concur in the dissenting opinion of Judge Price. Conagra retains title to the turkeys throughout the time the turkeys are being raised. Under the rationale employed by the majority, if Conagra were to retain title to the wood shavings until the turkeys have deposited the droppings on the shavings and only then transfer title to the “fertilizer” to the growers, then the transfer would be exempt under section 144.-030.2(1). Moreover, this result probably requires nothing more than a carefully drawn agreement between Conagra and the growers as to when title passes.
I do not think it is wise economic or tax policy to condition taxation upon such an insubstantial distinction. In my view, throughout the whole process — from the purchase of the wood shavings by Conagra, to their transfer to the growers, to the time the growers place the wood shavings and droppings on their fields — everyone involved has a bona fide intention to use the wood shav-*920mgs as fertilizer, and they do so. It is either fertilizer or something so close to it that it should be treated as fertilizer. Any other conclusion is a distinction without a difference. I would allow the exemption.