- 20 -
938 F. Supp. 166, 168 (W.D.N.Y. 1996). In the construction of
such improvements, the labor predominates with the materials
being merely an incident thereto. See Cork Plumbing Co. v.
Martin Bloom Associates., Inc., 573 S.W.2d 947, 958 (Mo. Ct. App.
1978).
Under the USA, a contract to "furnish the necessary labor
and material" for a radiant heating system was a contract for
labor and material, not a contract for sale of material. See
Aced v. Hobbs-Sesack Plumbing Co., 55 Cal.2d 573, 580-581 (1961).
Furthermore, an agreement to build a structure according to
another's plans and specifications is not an agreement of sale of
any of the materials which may enter into its composition. See
United States v. San Francisco Elec. Contractors Association, 57
F. Supp. 57, 67 (N.D. Cal. 1944).
For purposes of State sales tax, the general rule views a
building contractor as a supplier of services and a consumer of
the building material. See Levine v. State Bd. of Equalization,
299 P.2d 738 (Cal. Ct. App. 1956).6
6See, e.g., Department of Revenue v. Montgomery Woodworks,
Inc., 389 So. 2d 510 (Ala. Civ. App. 1980); Raynor Door, Inc. v.
Charnes, 765 P.2d 650 (Colo. App. 1988); H.B. Sanson, Inc. v. Tax
Commissioner, 447 A.2d 12 (Conn. 1982); King's Bay Yacht &
Country Club, Inc. v. Green, 173 So. 2d 509 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
1965); Sturtz v. Iowa Dept. of Revenue, 373 N.W.2d 131 (Iowa
1985); Pete Koenig Co. v. Department of Revenue, 655 S.W.2d 496
(Ky. Ct. App. 1983); Miedema Metal Bldg. Sys., Inc. v. Department
of Treasury, 338 N.W.2d 924 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983); Blevins
Asphalt Constr. Co. v. Director of Revenue, 938 S.W.2d 899 (Mo.
1997); George Rose & Sons Sodding & Grading Co. v. Nebraska Dept.
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011