City of Boulder v. Leanin' Tree, Inc.
Supreme Court of Colorado
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partChief Justice Mullarkey
I agree with the majority that we should apply a multi-factor or totality-of-the-cireum-stances test to determine whether the transaction involved here is the sale or use of tangible personal property under the Boulder ordinance. I also agree that in applying the test, we should apply a practical, common sense understanding to determine the nature of the transaction. This is the approach advocated by 2 Jerome R. Hellerstein & Walter Hellerstein, State Taxation, I 12.08[2] (3d ed.2002). As the authors point out, courts will have to untangle transactions that have both tangible and intangible…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Preston v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 2001
- Voss v. GrayNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1941
- Federated Department Stores, Inc. v. KosydarOhio Supreme Court · 1976
- Hillman Periodicals, Inc. v. GerosaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1955
- Behm v. Division of Administration, State Department of TransportationDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1979