Legal Opinion · Dissent

In re Appeal of Sheetz, Inc.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 13, 1995No. 1109 C.D. 1992Published

1DissentSmith, Judge

I dissent because the trial court did not err in determining that Sheetz, Inc.’s canopies have retained the nature of personal property and therefore are non-taxable as realty. Before the trial court Sheetz presented among others the testimony of Richard A. Vanevenhoven, vice president of finance, and Michael J. Dick, installation and service manager of Sheetz, Inc., and Vernon L. Weaver, president of Bolger Brothers, Inc., a company which removed and installed canopies for Sheetz. Vanevenhoven testified that the Department of Revenue audited Sheetz for the years 1984 through 1987 and found…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Frowen v. BlankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
  2. Clayton v. LienhardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
  3. Tool Sales & Service Co. v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1993
  4. Canon-McMillan School District v. BioniCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  5. Wilson v. Ridgway Area School DistrictCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1991

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API