(Repealed) Source: L. 37: p. 1098, § 1. CSA: C. 144, § 35. L. 43: p. 540, § 2. L. 45: p. 577, § 1. CRS 53: § 138-6-34. L. 59: p. 802, §§ 4, 5. C.R.S. 1963: § 138-5-34. L. 67: p. 349, § 1. L. 73: p. 242, § 25. L. 75: (1)(o) amended, p. 1468, § 16, effective July 18. L. 76: (1)(p) and (1)(q) added, p. 788, § 2, effective July 1. L. 77: (1)(c) R&RE and (1)(p) and (1)(q) amended, pp. 1829, 1831, § 2, effective July 1; (1)(r) and (1)(s) added, p. 1834, § 2, effective July 20; (1)(c) R&RE and (1)(j) amended, p. 1837, § 2, effective January 1, 1978. L. 78: (1)(e) amended, p. 507, § 3, effective March 8; (1)(t) and (1)(u) added, p. 515, § 2, effective April 4; (1)(v) added, p. 512, effective May 5; (1)(a) amended, p. 509, § 4, effective July 1. L. 79: (1)(w) added, p. 1466, § 5, effective June 7; (1)(y) added, p. 1428, § 11, effective July 1; (1)(v) amended, p. 1428, § 11, effective July 3; (1)(c) amended, (1)(v) repealed, and (1)(v.1), (1)(x), and (1)(z) added, pp. 1428, 1440, 1501, §§ 11, 27, 28, effective January 1, 1980. L. 80: (1)(z) amended, p. 733, § 2, effective May 20. L. 82: (1)(z) amended, p. 571, § 3, effective April 27; (1)(f) and
(1)(g) amended, p. 569, § 3, effective July 1. L. 84: (1)(aa) added, p. 1021, § 2, effective March 5. L. 88: (1)(c) amended, p. 1090, § 5, effective January 1, 1989. L. 90: (1)(bb) added, p. 1741, § 3, effective April 17. L. 91: (1)(c) amended, p. 2397, § 21, effective July 1; (1)(cc) added, p. 1968, § 2, effective July 1, 1992. L. 91, 1st Ex. Sess.: (1)(c) amended, p. 7, § 10, effective July 1. L. 92: (1)(dd) and (1)(ee) added, p. 2259, § 2, effective July 1. L. 94: (1)(o) amended, p. 2568, § 89, effective January 1, 1995. L. 95: (1)(g) amended, p. 1214, § 4, effective May 31. L. 96: (1)(dd) and (1)(ee) amended, p.1242, § 101, effective August 7. L. 98: (1)(ff) added, p. 494, § 1, effective April 22; (1)(gg) added, p. 736, § 4, effective May 18. L. 99: (1)(ll) added, p. 980, § 2, effective May 28; (1)(e) amended, p. 1272, § 3, effective June 3; (1)(bb) RC&RE, p. 1298, § 3, effective June 3; (1)(hh) and (1)(ii) added, p. 1274, § 2, effective July 1; (1)(kk) added, p. 1304, § 2, effective July 1; (1)(mm) added, p. 1324, § 3, effective July 1; (1)(jj) added, p. 1355, § 3, effective January 1, 2000. L. 2000: IP (1)(hh)(II) amended, p. 550, § 4, effective July 1;
(1)(gg) amended, p. 736, § 4, effective August 2; (1)(c)(I) amended, p. 1938, § 19, effective October 1. L. 2001: IP(1)(hh)(II) amended, p. 162, § 2, effective July 1; IP(1)(hh)(II) amended, p. 382, § 2, effective July 1; (1)(nn) added, p. 1545, § 2, effective July 1. L. 2003: (1)(c)(I) amended, p. 1818, § 7, effective August 6. L. 2004: (1)(b) amended, p. 653, § 2, effective April 26; entire section repealed, p. 1016, § 1, effective July 1.
Editor's note: (1) The provisions of this section were relocated to part 7 of this article. For the location of specific provisions, see the editor's note following each section in said part 7 and the comparative tables located in the back of the index.
(2) House Bill 04-1241 amended subsection (1)(b), effective April 26, 2004, but that amendment did not take effect since this section was repealed by Senate Bill 04-087, effective July 1, 2004. The amendment to subsection (1)(b) by House Bill 04-1241 was relocated to § 39- 26-713 (2)(b) and harmonized with Senate Bill 04-087.
Notes of Decisions
State Dep't of Revenue v. Adolph Coors Co., 724 P.2d 1341 (Colo. 1986).
· cites it 16× “Colorado also imposes a use tax on “the privilege of storing, using, or consuming in this state any articles of tangible personal property purchased at retail.”
Reg'l Transp. Dist. v. Martin Marietta Corp., 805 P.2d 1102 (Colo. 1991).
· cites it 26× “*1104 The district court entered judgment in favor of Martin. It concluded that under the stipulated facts the equipment was purchased for resale and was therefore exempt from use tax and RTD tax assessments pursuant to section 39-26-203(1)(b), 16 C.”
Cf & I. Steel Corp. v. Charnes, 637 P.2d 324 (Colo. 1981).
· cites it 12× “were exempt from the use tax under the processing clause of the sales and use tax law, section 39-26-203(1)(f), C.R.S.1973, which exempts tangible personal property which "enters into the processing of or becomes an ingredient or component part of the product .”
A.B. Hirschfeld Press, Inc. v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 806 P.2d 917 (Colo. 1991).
· cites it 6× “1986); see also, § 39-26-203(1)(a), 16B C.R.S. (1982). The use tax "was designed to apply to the use and consumption of commodities elsewhere purchased at retail, which, if purchased in Colorado, would have been subject to the sales tax.”
Ball Corp. v. Fisher, 51 P.3d 1053 (Colo. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 6× “2001, were incorporated into the general use tax exemption for such machinery, § 39-26-203(l)(y), C.R.S.2001, and into the Urban and Rural Enterprise Zone Act, § 39-30-101, et seq.”
Broadmoor Hotel, Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue, 773 P.2d 627 (Colo. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 7× “The Broadmoor, however, contends that even if its purchase of the snacks is subject to a use tax, it is exempt from the tax under § 39-26-203(l)(t), C.R.S. (1982 Repl. Vol.”
Int'l Bus. MacHines Corp. v. Charnes, 601 P.2d 622 (Colo. 1979).
· cites it 3× “” The issue in this case is whether the district court erred in reaching those conclusions in favor of IBM. A use tax is a levy upon the “privilege of storing, using or consuming in this state .”
Matthews v. State, Dep't of Revenue, 562 P.2d 415 (Colo. 1977).
· cites it 3× “Section 39-26-203, C.R.S. 1973. However, there is no provision for a credit for property traded or exchanged out of state as in the case of the sales tax.”
Howard Elec. & Mech., Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue, 771 P.2d 475 (Colo. 1989).
“” Sections 39-26-101 through -126 (Part 1) concern Sales Tax, sections 39-26-201 through -211 (Part 2) concern Use Tax, and Part 2 is, by definition, supplementary to Part 1.”
Adolph Coors Co. v. Charnes, 690 P.2d 893 (Colo. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 3× “commodity, which tangible personal property enters into the processing of or becomes an ingredient or component part of the product or service which is manufactured, compounded, or furnished, and the container, label, or the furnished shipping case thereof, shall be deemed to be…”
Gen. Motors Corp. v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 990 P.2d 59 (Colo. 1999).
“See § 39-26-203(l)(k), 11 C.R.S. (1999). Denver argues that the establishment of identical tax crediting schemes throughout the country would not lead to the assessment of an unconstitutional tax burden on interstate taxpayers.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-26-203(1) — 3 cases
Int'l Bus. MacHines Corp. v. Charnes, 601 P.2d 622 (Colo. 1979).
“” The issue in this case is whether the district court erred in reaching those conclusions in favor of IBM. A use tax is a levy upon the “privilege of storing, using or consuming in this state .”
Howard Elec. & Mech., Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue, 771 P.2d 475 (Colo. 1989).
“” Sections 39-26-101 through -126 (Part 1) concern Sales Tax, sections 39-26-201 through -211 (Part 2) concern Use Tax, and Part 2 is, by definition, supplementary to Part 1.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-26-203(1)(a) — 2 cases
State Dep't of Revenue v. Adolph Coors Co., 724 P.2d 1341 (Colo. 1986).
“Colorado also imposes a use tax on “the privilege of storing, using, or consuming in this state any articles of tangible personal property purchased at retail.”
A.B. Hirschfeld Press, Inc. v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 806 P.2d 917 (Colo. 1991).
“1986); see also, § 39-26-203(1)(a), 16B C.R.S. (1982). The use tax "was designed to apply to the use and consumption of commodities elsewhere purchased at retail, which, if purchased in Colorado, would have been subject to the sales tax.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-26-203(1)(b) — 1 case
Reg'l Transp. Dist. v. Martin Marietta Corp., 805 P.2d 1102 (Colo. 1991).
“*1104 The district court entered judgment in favor of Martin. It concluded that under the stipulated facts the equipment was purchased for resale and was therefore exempt from use tax and RTD tax assessments pursuant to section 39-26-203(1)(b), 16 C.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-26-203(1)(e) — 2 cases
Reg'l Transp. Dist. v. Martin Marietta Corp., 805 P.2d 1102 (Colo. 1991).
“*1104 The district court entered judgment in favor of Martin. It concluded that under the stipulated facts the equipment was purchased for resale and was therefore exempt from use tax and RTD tax assessments pursuant to section 39-26-203(1)(b), 16 C.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-26-203(1)(f) — 3 cases
Cf & I. Steel Corp. v. Charnes, 637 P.2d 324 (Colo. 1981).
“were exempt from the use tax under the processing clause of the sales and use tax law, section 39-26-203(1)(f), C.R.S.1973, which exempts tangible personal property which "enters into the processing of or becomes an ingredient or component part of the product .”
A.B. Hirschfeld Press, Inc. v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 806 P.2d 917 (Colo. 1991).
“1986); see also, § 39-26-203(1)(a), 16B C.R.S. (1982). The use tax "was designed to apply to the use and consumption of commodities elsewhere purchased at retail, which, if purchased in Colorado, would have been subject to the sales tax.”
State Dep't of Revenue v. Adolph Coors Co., 724 P.2d 1341 (Colo. 1986).
“Colorado also imposes a use tax on “the privilege of storing, using, or consuming in this state any articles of tangible personal property purchased at retail.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-26-203(1)(f)(I) — 1 case
State Dep't of Revenue v. Adolph Coors Co., 724 P.2d 1341 (Colo. 1986).
“Colorado also imposes a use tax on “the privilege of storing, using, or consuming in this state any articles of tangible personal property purchased at retail.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-26-203(1)(k) — 1 case
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-26-203(l)(a) — 1 case
A.B. Hirschfeld Press, Inc. v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 806 P.2d 917 (Colo. 1991).
“1986); see also, § 39-26-203(1)(a), 16B C.R.S. (1982). The use tax "was designed to apply to the use and consumption of commodities elsewhere purchased at retail, which, if purchased in Colorado, would have been subject to the sales tax.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-26-203(l)(b) — 2 cases
Reg'l Transp. Dist. v. Martin Marietta Corp., 805 P.2d 1102 (Colo. 1991).
“*1104 The district court entered judgment in favor of Martin. It concluded that under the stipulated facts the equipment was purchased for resale and was therefore exempt from use tax and RTD tax assessments pursuant to section 39-26-203(1)(b), 16 C.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-26-203(l)(e) — 1 case
Reg'l Transp. Dist. v. Martin Marietta Corp., 805 P.2d 1102 (Colo. 1991).
“*1104 The district court entered judgment in favor of Martin. It concluded that under the stipulated facts the equipment was purchased for resale and was therefore exempt from use tax and RTD tax assessments pursuant to section 39-26-203(1)(b), 16 C.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-26-203(l)(f) — 1 case
A.B. Hirschfeld Press, Inc. v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 806 P.2d 917 (Colo. 1991).
“1986); see also, § 39-26-203(1)(a), 16B C.R.S. (1982). The use tax "was designed to apply to the use and consumption of commodities elsewhere purchased at retail, which, if purchased in Colorado, would have been subject to the sales tax.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-26-203(l)(f)(I) — 2 cases
State Dep't of Revenue v. Adolph Coors Co., 724 P.2d 1341 (Colo. 1986).
“Colorado also imposes a use tax on “the privilege of storing, using, or consuming in this state any articles of tangible personal property purchased at retail.”
Adolph Coors Co. v. Charnes, 690 P.2d 893 (Colo. Ct. App. 1984).
“commodity, which tangible personal property enters into the processing of or becomes an ingredient or component part of the product or service which is manufactured, compounded, or furnished, and the container, label, or the furnished shipping case thereof, shall be deemed to be…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-26-203(l)(k) — 1 case
Gen. Motors Corp. v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 990 P.2d 59 (Colo. 1999).
“See § 39-26-203(l)(k), 11 C.R.S. (1999). Denver argues that the establishment of identical tax crediting schemes throughout the country would not lead to the assessment of an unconstitutional tax burden on interstate taxpayers.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-26-203(l)(r) — 1 case
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-26-203(l)(t) — 1 case
Broadmoor Hotel, Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue, 773 P.2d 627 (Colo. Ct. App. 1989).
“The Broadmoor, however, contends that even if its purchase of the snacks is subject to a use tax, it is exempt from the tax under § 39-26-203(l)(t), C.R.S. (1982 Repl. Vol.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-26-203(l)(y) — 2 cases
Ball Corp. v. Fisher, 51 P.3d 1053 (Colo. Ct. App. 2001).
“2001, were incorporated into the general use tax exemption for such machinery, § 39-26-203(l)(y), C.R.S.2001, and into the Urban and Rural Enterprise Zone Act, § 39-30-101, et seq.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.