Commonwealth v. Sitkin's Junk Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the taxpayer’s activities of sorting, cutting and baling scrap metal into a different form constituted “other operations” for purposes of manufacturing ex-elusion such that equipment used was nontaxable
• presumption that similar statutory language will be interpreted the same way courts previously interpreted it
• “[W]e have repeatedly said in the construction of a statute that presumably every word, sentence and provision therein is intended for some purpose, and accordingly must be given effect.”
• “[w]e have long held that, where a statute contains its own definition, the meaning of the terms as defined at common law or as constructed under prior statutes is not controlling”
• predecessor Tax Act’s “true exemptions” were contained in 203 of that Act
• by specifically defining “manufacture,” the legislature indicated its intent that the term be construed in accordance with the statutory language and that the construction of such word was not controlled by prior judicial construction of the word under prior tax statutes

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).