Stilman v. Tax Review Bd., 166 A.2d 661 (Pa. 1961). · Go Syfert
Search
Stilman v. Tax Review Bd., 166 A.2d 661 (Pa. 1961). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
26 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Synthes USA HQ v. Commonwealth, 289 A.3d 846 (Pa. 2023)
Treatment trajectory · 1973 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1973 1999 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
402 Pa. at 493 “to establish a denial of constitutional rights-in situations such as this-there must be a deliberate and purposeful discrimination in the application of the tax. prior error by an administrative official when interpreting a valid tax statute is insufficient, in itself, to constitute a violation of…”4 citing cases3 citing courts quote it
166 A.2d at 662 Deliberate discrimination required for constitutional tax violation3 citing cases[T]o establish a denial of constitutional rights-in situations such as this-there must be a deliberate and purposeful discrimination in the application of the tax. Prior error by an administrative official when interpreting a valid tax statute is insufficient, in itself, to constitute a violation…3 citing courts put it this way
  • Synthes USA HQ v. Commonwealth, 289 A.3d 846 (Pa. 2023).published
    (Prior error by an administrative official when interpreting a valid tax statute is insufficient, in itself, to constitute a violation of the rights of due process and equal protection of the laws.)
  • Synthes USA HQ, Inc. v. Com., 236 A.3d 1190 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2020).published
    ([T]o establish a denial of constitutional rights-in situations such as this-there must be a deliberate and purposeful discrimination in the application of the tax. Prior error by an administrative official when interpr…)
  • Berks Cnty. Bd. of Assessment v. Berks Cnty. Conservancy, 517 A.2d 572 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1986).published
    “there must be a deliberate and purposeful discrimination in the application of the tax”
Other citing cases1 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Stilman, Appellant,
v.
Tax Review Board
Appeal, 163.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Jan 4, 1961.
Published opinion
166 A.2d 661
1961 Pa. LEXIS 385
Lester Msenstadt, for appellant., James L. Stern, Deputy City Solicitor, with Mm Matthew W. Bulloch, Jr. and Leonard B. Rosenthal, Assistant City Solicitors, and David Berger, City Solicitor, for Tax Review Board, appellee.
Jones, Bell, Musmanno, Cohen, Bok, Eagen.
Cited by 11 opinions  |  Published

Opinion bt

Mb. Justice Cohen,

This is an appeal from the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas No. 5 of Philadelphia County which dismissed an appeal from a decision of the Tax Review Board holding that the appellant was not entitled to use the alternate method of computing Ms mercantile license tax since his operations of converting table but[*493] ter into whipped bntter did not constitute manufacturing. [1]

A number of years ago an assistant city solicitor made an apparently incorrect ruling in reference to the assessment of the Philadelphia Mercantile License Tax. [2] That ruling has since been repudiated. Appellant now comes before this Court and claims, solely on the basis of this isolated erroneous ruling, that the assessment in his case was discriminatory and infringed upon his constitutional rights of due process and equal protection of the laws.

A taxpayer may not successfully contest his own assessment by offering evidence of an incorrect and repudiated ruling for the absurd purpose of [demanding that the taxing authority again misinterpret the law. As recently as Commonwealth v. Koppers Co., Inc., 397 Pa. 523, 156 A. 2d 328 (1959), we stated the widely accepted rule that in order to establish a denial of constitutional rights — in situations such as this — there must be a deliberate and purposeful discrimination in the application of the tax. Prior error by an administrative official when interpreting a valid tax statute is insufficient, in itself, to constitute a violation of the rights of due process and equal protection of the laws.

Judgment affirmed.

1

The appellant’s operations clearly do not constitute manufacturing. See Pittsburgh v. Electric Welding Co., 394 Pa. 60, 145 A. 2d 528 (1958), and cases cited therein.

2

Opinion of the City Solicitor, MI/P-27, Ruling 55-23, December 20, 1955, concerning the Petition of Gross Brothers Meat Packers, Inc. There the activities of a meat packer were found to be manufacturing for the purpose of the Philadelphia Mercantile License Tax.