Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1942 )

COPY
TEE A'TTORNEY GENERAL
OF TEXAS
Ausmh.. TEXAS
non. George n Sheppard
Cmnptrollor ef PsbIic Acewants Opinion No. 04403
.Asstin. Texas Ro: Gross Receipts Tu .mpon
nlo of rsdios and cosmet-
Desr sit: ies,
In your lettar ef Februery 9. 1942. you direct our 8ttontton to
Article LO of House Bill No. 8. 47th tegislrrtsre, and submit to us for osr
opinion the follewlng:
“It appears to be the prsctlee of people engaged La tbe
sale of eo~metlcs urd radfos te add two per cent to the sale
price ef the ar.tkb and collect tbst moth fs sdditfea When
the ssle is made and report the two per cenkcellectad l
the tu dae this Deputmant. Tke quoetion bee arterr as
to whether et net the ~IU else a p p liesl@ast the sdditian-
al amount colbeted at tke tfzne ef the ule, For exmnplo:
a ~deeler sells I zadfo at the sale priso ef $100 but ho csl-
lest8 $102 from tbe custemer. sbmsld the soiler bsso
~tuu~esrlo~o~$100o,ontLa``,``1Q2
ltuslly
c o llo c to d?
Tke first end lest @graphs ef Sectfar I, A?ticle I@. Roeso Bill
No. 0,47th Leglslsture, rud 8s follewst
“Esch persa prrtnorshtp. ueocieiiof4 o* corporation
selling st rotsil new radios or new cocmetlu, ckall nwke
quarterly es the first dsy ef fsasuy. April, July, and Oe-
tober of slrch year, s ropott te the Cmnptsolle?, under estb
of
thoewner
ma,ng e
o rif
,
l‘to r p o mtlo
a n
o ffic
a tker
eu-
of, skorfna the sggiog8to pus rebetpts froar the eelc ef uay of
the &ove-acmed ltenu for tlie qusrter sext preceding; end
shell st tbe saxue time psy tc~tho Eeraptrofler a luxsry ex-
cise tax equel to twe (2) per sent ef stid gross receipts es
shown by cold report.. .
“NotMap lurein slmll be ooutrued so as to seqsir8 *y-
meat of tke tu on ross receipts lurein leded more tbaa
once on the proc eels of the ssle of tke swne article d mer-
chkndise,. A reta snle ss used kC@m. m-8 s sele te one rho
buys for we or ooarrumxpthm~Ua pat for resale. -08s ie*
ceipts ef s sale me6as the sum w&b the pwahuor psys, or
lg r c e8
to pay for es artlele or cernmOaity b6qbt st retail sele.”
Hon. Gee. I-I. Shopplccd, pge 2
In our oplnloa No. 04056 we held tkst fa ceaxputimg the State tax
on the sale of cosmetics the amount sdded to the ule price oa secwat
of the Federel tex should be sxcladsd from the enwant cm which the
Stste tax shoald be cslcalsted. our view bea thst the lncreue ia cost
te the consumer by muon ef tho Fedora1 tu b net (L part of the ule
price. la support at tlmt opiaim we cited * case ef Stsadsrd Oil
Coaxpuy v. Stste, 283 Mich. 85. 274 N.W. 908. Wo tea see 10 differ-
lace ia prlaclple between thet qaestioa aad the oao befero as. If the
Federal tu thus collectsd from the consuater it the time ef the ule
i* set s prrt ef the sele price of the merchandise, then tho Ststo tax
collected la the seam mnuer sad at the ssme time b mt. There 18
not enough differcue between tho Federal stetste levyin the t;cn per
cent tex and tbo Mete mt8t+te lsvying the two per cent tax to morlt a
different result OP this question. Oar answer to your question is that
the seller should base his tu on the ssle price ef $100.00 on the fact
sltuatlon presented.
Yours very truly
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
BY (*fu=d .
GleaaEL,Lewis
Auistent
GRL/Bf/JCP
APPROVED FEB l3.1942 APPROVED
(slgwd) Grover Sellers OPINXON COMMITTEE
FfRSTASSISTANT BY B.W.B., CHAIRMAN
ATTORNEY GENERAL