SONITROL CORP.

v.

BENNETT

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. NEW Mexico, 455 U.S. 720 (U.S. 1982)
  …extent that it reaches the contractor’s interest in Government-owned property, cf. City of Detroit v. Murray Corp., 355 U. S., at 494; United States v. Colorado, 627 F. 2d 217 (CA10 1980), summarily aff'd sub nom. Jefferson County v. United States, 450 U. S. 901 (1981), there has been no suggestion here that the contractors are being taxed beyond the value of their use. Arkansas did not impose a corresponding use tax, and the Court therefore considered only whether the sale itself was a taxable transaction…
• United States v. Hawkins Cnty., 859 F.2d 20 (6th Cir. 1988)
  …poration’s] ‘use’ of government owned property, but to lay an ad valorem general property tax on property owned by the United States.” United States v. Colorado, 627 F. 2d 217 (10th Cir.1980), aff'd sub nom. Jefferson County, Colo. v. United States, 450 U.S. 901, 101 S.Ct. 1335, 67 L.Ed.2d 325 (1981). The Tennessee statute provides that “all property of the United States” used for other than an exclusively public purpose is to be assessed to its user at a value determined pursuant to other sections of the…
• United States v. NYE Cnty. Nev., 938 F.2d 1040 (9th Cir. 1991)
  …he Government contends, “no beneficial personal use.” Two other courts have reached the same conclusion as to analogous taxes. See United States v. Colorado, 627 F. 2d 217 (10th Cir.1980), summarily affd sub nom.; Jefferson County v. United States, 450 U.S. 901, 101 S.Ct. 1335, 67 L.Ed.2d 325 (1981); United States v. Hawkins County, 859 F. 2d 20 (6th Cir.1988). In each of these cases the tax exceeded the profit of the contract. But, the United States notes, what was decisive for the Tenth Circuit in the Co…

  ← 1 / 3 →