Matter of U-Need-A-Roll Off Corp. v. New York State Tax Comm'n, 490 N.E.2d 840 (N.Y. 1986). · Go Syfert
Search
Matter of U-Need-A-Roll Off Corp. v. New York State Tax Comm'n, 490 N.E.2d 840 (N.Y. 1986). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
15 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Waste Mgmt. of Colorado, Inc. v. City of Com. City, 250 P.3d 722 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010)
How cited ↗
Cited for
490 N.E.2d at 840 cited at this page1 citing case
  • Waste Mgmt. of Colorado, Inc. v. City of Com. City, 250 P.3d 722 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010).published
    Finally, in U-Need -A-Roll Off Corp. v. New York State Tax Commussion, 67 N.Y.2d 690 , 499 N.Y.S.2d 921 , 490 N.E.2d 840, 840 (1986), a trash removal company's customers were charged a flat fee for trash removal, without a separate rental…
67 N.Y.2d at 692 Determining the scope of the search incident to arrest1 citing case
Other citing cases2 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of U-Need-A-Roll Off Corp., Respondent,
v.
New York State Tax Commission, Appellant
New York Court of Appeals.
Feb 6, 1986.
Published opinion
490 N.E.2d 840
1986 N.Y. LEXIS 16628
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Robert Abrams, Attorney-General (Robert Hermann and Kathleen Liston Morrison of counsel), for appellant., David Hirschberg for respondent.
Wachtler and Judges Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone and Hancock, Jr., Concur.
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the determination of the State Tax Commission that petitioner’s initial purchase of trash containers and compactors was not tax exempt reinstated.

Invoices submitted by petitioner corresponding to the audit period showed that petitioner’s customers were charged a flat fee for petitioner’s trash removal services without stating a separate rental charge for the customers’ use of the containers and compactors. Thus, there was substantial evidence to support the Commission’s determination that petitioner’s transactions with its customers did not involve a rental of personal property, and accordingly, the Commission could properly consider the initial purchase by petitioner of the property to be subject to sales tax (Tax Law § 1105 [a]; § 1101 [b] [4]). As we have had previous occasion to note, "[i]t should not fall[*693] within judicial 'decisional analysis’ to determine what is or is not a rental” (Matter of Albany Calcium Light Co. v State Tax Commn., 44 NY2d 986, 988).

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone and Hancock, Jr., concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order reversed, with costs, and the determination of the State Tax Commission reinstated in a memorandum.