Legal Opinion
Airkaman, Inc. v. Groppo
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided April 28, 1992No. 14386PublishedCited by 35 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtShea, J.
The principal issue in this tax appeal is whether the trial court correctly interpreted the term “management services” in General Statutes (Rev. to 1985) § 12-407 (2) (i) (K), subsequently redesignated and referred to herein as § 12-407 (2) (i) (J), to include only management consulting services and not day-today operational management services.1 After a determination by the defendant, the commissioner of revenue services, that the plaintiffs, AirKaman, Inc. (AirKaman), and Combs Gates Bradley, Inc. (Combs Gates), were liable for deficiency assessments for sales and use tax for the sale of…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Kelley v. BonneySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
- Texaco Refining & Marketing Co. v. Commissioner of Revenue ServicesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1987
- United Illuminating Co. v. GroppoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
- Cioffoletti v. Planning & Zoning CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1989
- International Business MacHines Corporation v. BrownSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1974
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by35 opinions
- In re Valerie D.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
- Vaillancourt v. New Britain Machine/LittonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1993
- Weinberg v. ARA Vending Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
- Rizzuto v. Davidson Ladders, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2006
- Elliot v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1994
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.