Metaltech v. City of Pittsburgh
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
1DissentFriedman, Judge
Admittedly, this is a close case; however, after careful consideration of the relevant case law and its application to the *181facts presented here, I feel that Metaltech is entitled to the statutory protection from tax found in section 2(4) of the Act, 53 P.S. § 6902(4), because it is engaged in manufacturing. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.
In Bindex Corp. v. City of Pittsburgh, 504 Pa. 584, 475 A.2d 1320 (1984), our Supreme Court considered the term “manufacture” and determined that the concept underlying the definition of manufacture is the transformation of material or things into…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Bindex Corp. v. City of PittsburghSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
- Pittsburgh v. Electric Welding Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1958
- Ski Roundtop, Inc. v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
- Stewart Honeybee Products, Inc. v. Commonwealth, Board of Finance & RevenueSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
- Harsco Corp. v. City of PittsburghSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.