Court Opinion

ID: 9754512
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 20:02:49.060261+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:54.189736
License: Public Domain

LARSEN, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent and join Justice FLAHERTY’S dissenting opinion.
To ascertain legislative intent in the instant case, it is helpful to review the previously proposed, but unenacted definition of a family farm corporation entitled to an exemption from the Capital Stock Tax. The unenacted definition was contained in House Bill No. 1608, Printer’s No. 1931 and read: “[f]amily farm corporation shall mean a corporation organized and operated for the agricultural use of land, wherein at least seventy-five per cent of all the stock is owned by members of the same family.” H.B. No. 1608, § 1(b)(1) (1979) (emphasis supplied).
The enacted definition clearly differs from this by defining a family farm corporation as a “ ... Pennsylvania corporation at least seventy-five per cent of the assets of which are devoted to the business of agriculture, — ” 72 P.S. § 7602.2(b)(1) (emphasis supplied). The adoption of this broader definition demonstrates that the legislature did not intend to require that the corporation actually engage in agriculture. Rather, it is only required, as done by appellant here, that the corporation devote at least seventy-five per cent of its assets — farmland and farm equipment — to the business of agriculture.
Therefore, I would hold that appellant qualifies for the family farm corporation exemption from the Pennsylvania Capital Stock Tax.
FLAHERTY, J., joins this dissenting opinion.