Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

United Utilities, Inc. Stockholders Tax Appeals

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 21, 1972No. Appeals, Nos. 1089 C.D. 1971, 1090 C.D. 1971, 1091 C.D. 1971 and 1092 C.D. 1971Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Opinion by

Judge Kramer

(Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part) :

While I concur with my brothers in the majority as to the liability for the personal property tax due and payable upon the ownership of the capital stock of United Utilities, Inc. (United) by all of the appellants in this case, I must register this dissent insofar as the majority has permitted interest to be charged a,gainst the appellants dating back to the date the tax became delinquent (as ordered by the lower court) for the respective years involved.

*114The majority cites two cases for their holding that interest was so due.…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. Southern Pennsylvania Bus Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1940
  2. Goldstein v. Pittsburgh School DistrictSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1952

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API