Chapman Chinchilla Sales Co. v. Johnson

TUTTLE, J.

This action was brought to recover the sum of $768 paid by plaintiff as a retail sales tax. Judgment went for defendant, and plaintiff how appeals therefrom.

The facts are undisputed, and the salient parts thereof appear in the following portion of the findings:

“Plaintiff was and is a seller of small fur-bearing animals known as Chinchillas, and is engaged in the business of selling at retail, in California, said Chinchillas; that plaintiff sells, in California, said Chinchillas to purchasers who purchase them for the sole purpose of breeding them and multiplying their progeny. ’ ’

It was also stipulated that the only use to which said animals could be put was for bearing fur and reproducing their kind, and that during the month of June, 1939, for which period the tax was levied, the sales made by plaintiff were of live Chinchillas to breeders for breeding purposes only.

The question presented arises out of a construction of the Retail Sales Tax Act, section 2c, Stats. 1933, page 2599; Deering’s General Laws, Act 8493, which provides in part as follows:

“A ‘retail sale’ or ‘sale at retail’ means a sale to a consumer or to any person for any purpose other than for resale in the form of tangible personal property. ...”

It is the contention of appellant that the sale here does not come within the provisions of said act, for the reason that a sale of such animals was for breeding purposes only; hence, there was a sale for the purpose of resale, and such transactions were not subject to the tax. In support of its position, appellant insists that the retail sale occurs when the

pelts

of the animals and the

pelts

of the offspring are sold in the form of a fur coat. They urge that “with reference to

[197]

the sale of animals for breeding purposes only, it is clear that the true value of such animals is contained in the sperm and ova in the animal at the time of sale, and that the purchase of the animal with the sperm and ova in them is therefore a purchase for the purpose of resale.” Respondent has the following answer to the foregoing contention: