Legal Opinion · Dissent

Bell Atlantic Mobile Systems, Inc. v. Commonwealth

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 23, 2004No. Appeal 103 MAP 2002, 105 MAP 2002Published

1DissentJustice Saylor

However incongruous it may seem, the General Assembly had defined the term “tangible personal property,” for sales and use tax purposes, to include cellular telecommunications service. See 72 P.S. §§ 7201(m), 7201(rr) (superseded). Therefore, and since the Legislature has also defined the term “manufacture” in terms of the production of “tangible personal property,” see 72 P.S. § 7201(c), I agree with Appellants’ position that, under the manufacturing exclusion applicable to sales and use taxation, see 72 P.S. § 7201(k), (o), they are entitled to relief from sales and/or use tax assessments…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Suburban Cable TV Co. v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
  2. Suburban Cable Tv v. Com., B. of FinanceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
  3. Suburban Cable TV Co. v. City of ChesterCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1996

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

Powered by the Exa API