From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

A. B. C. Electrotype Co. v. Ames

Supreme Court of Illinois
Oct 27, 1936
364 Ill. 360 (Ill. 1936)

Summary

In A.B.C., this court similarly held that persons engaged in producing electrotypes, stereotypes, and matrices were not liable for the retailers' occupation tax. This court reasoned that since the materials used in these processes were of no use to anyone other than the customer for whom the electrotype, stereotype or matrix was made, "[w]hat the customer really pays for is the skill, labor and use of the machinery and equipment of the electrotyper."

Summary of this case from Colorcraft Corp. v. Dep't of Revenue

Opinion

No. 23597. Judgment affirmed.

Opinion filed October 27, 1936.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. WALTER J. LABUY, Judge, presiding.

OTTO KERNER, Attorney General, (MONTGOMERY S. WINNING, and WILLIAM C. CLAUSEN, of counsel,) for appellants.

JOHN R. MCSWEENEY, (HARRY A. SILVERSTEIN, and BEN COPPLE, of counsel,) for appellees.


Plaintiffs (appellees) are engaged in making electrotypes, stereotypes and matrices for the use of their customers, the products being reproductions of type or patterns supplied by the customers. It appears from the record that an electrotype or stereotype is a reproduction cast in metal and mounted on a wooden base. A matrix is a reproduction made on blotting paper which the customer has his printer use by pouring melted type-metal thereon, thus obtaining metal reproductions which can be used on printing presses. Printers, newspapers and advertisers use this means of making further reproductions, insuring uniformity in printing, and permitting the making of large quantities of printed matter from one setting of type or one pattern. The Department of Finance, through its director, made a ruling which made the Retailers' Occupation tax applicable to plaintiffs' business, and this litigation started by complaint to enjoin the collection of that tax. There was a complaint, answer and agreed statement of facts, and there is nothing in dispute except the applicability of the act. It clearly appears that except for salvage value the materials involved are of no use to anyone other than the customer for whom the stereotype or electrotype is made, and that the salvage value is nothing in case of matrices and almost nothing in case of electrotypes and stereotypes. In the process of manufacture these materials represent from five to twelve per cent of the sum paid by the customer who furnishes the type-matter for reproduction. The trial court entered a decree in conformity with the prayer of the bill, and this appeal is prosecuted by the Department of Finance.

The trial court held, and we agree, that there is no substantial difference in principle between this case and Burgess Co. v. Ames, 359 Ill. 427. In this case, as in that one, the small quantity of tangible material which is used in the operation is practically destroyed and has no further use or value to anyone other than the customer who ordered that particular reproduction. What the customer really pays for is the skill, labor and use of the machinery and equipment of the electrotyper. The electrotyper is engaged in the business of furnishing that skill and labor and the use of that machinery — not in the sale of tangible personal property at retail.

The judgment of the circuit court of Cook county will be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Mr. JUSTICE WILSON, dissenting.


Summaries of

A. B. C. Electrotype Co. v. Ames

Supreme Court of Illinois
Oct 27, 1936
364 Ill. 360 (Ill. 1936)

In A.B.C., this court similarly held that persons engaged in producing electrotypes, stereotypes, and matrices were not liable for the retailers' occupation tax. This court reasoned that since the materials used in these processes were of no use to anyone other than the customer for whom the electrotype, stereotype or matrix was made, "[w]hat the customer really pays for is the skill, labor and use of the machinery and equipment of the electrotyper."

Summary of this case from Colorcraft Corp. v. Dep't of Revenue

In A. B. C. Electrotype Co. v. Ames, 364 Ill. 360, 4 N.E.2d 476 (1936), the unit sought to be taxed made electrotype, stereotypes, and matrices for customers who furnished the type or patterns to be transformed to the matrices or types.

Summary of this case from Statistical Tabulating Corp. v. Bullock
Case details for

A. B. C. Electrotype Co. v. Ames

Case Details

Full title:THE A. B. C. ELECTROTYPE COMPANY et al. Appellees, vs. K. L. AMES…

Court:Supreme Court of Illinois

Date published: Oct 27, 1936

Citations

364 Ill. 360 (Ill. 1936)
4 N.E.2d 476

Citing Cases

State Tax Commission v. Hopkins

Being a professional man, and the glasses supplied to his patients being merely an incident to the practice…

Colorcraft Corp. v. Dep't of Revenue

The classification of photofinishing as a service occupation is derived from three Illinois Supreme Court…