Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

City of Boulder v. Leanin' Tree, Inc.

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided June 30, 2003No. 01SC797Published

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

  1. Preston v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 2001
  2. Voss v. GrayNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1941
  3. Federated Department Stores, Inc. v. KosydarOhio Supreme Court · 1976
  4. Hillman Periodicals, Inc. v. GerosaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1955
  5. Behm v. Division of Administration, State Department of TransportationDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1979

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

Powered by the Exa API