Vt. Stat. Ann. » Title 32 Chapter 233
Vermont Statutes Annotated

Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 32, § 9744 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VT-LEGlegislature.vermont.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Subchapter 002 : EXEMPTIONS

(Cite as: 32 V.S.A. § 9744)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1975–1997 · leading case: Bigelow v. Dep't of Taxes, 652 A.2d 985 (Vt. 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bigelow v. Dep't of Taxes, 652 A.2d 985 (Vt. 1994). · cites it 3× “§ 9773(1) *35 because he did not purchase the boat at retail, (2) the Department could not prove that he used the boat in Vermont for at least thirty days, the statutory period giving rise to liability under 32 V.S.A. § 9744(a)(2), and (3) the tax violated the Constitution’s…”
In Re R.S. Audley, Inc., 562 A.2d 1046 (Vt. 1989). · cites it 2× “The Department argues, however, that 32 V.S.A. § 9744(b) requires that a business in taxpayer’s position “shall not be deemed a nonresident.”
Rowe-Genereux, Inc. v. Dep't of Taxes, 411 A.2d 1345 (Vt. 1980). “32 V.S.A. § 9744(a)(3). Relying on the definitions contained in the sales and use tax statutory scheme, the State argues that the sales of furniture and carpet by Rowe were “Vermont sales” and that, therefore, they are subject to the Vermont sales tax.”
Morton Bldgs., Inc. v. Dep't of Taxes, 705 A.2d 1384 (Vt. 1997). “…tax was paid in another state is exempt from use taxation if the other sate allows a corresponding exemption. See 32 VS.A. § 9744(a)(3).”
Int'l Bus. MacHines Corp. v. Vermont Dep't of Taxes, 336 A.2d 158 (Vt. 1975). “32 V.S.A. § 9744(a) (1). No violation of the interstate commerce clause has been demonstrated.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 32, § 9744(a) — 1 case
Int'l Bus. MacHines Corp. v. Vermont Dep't of Taxes, 336 A.2d 158 (Vt. 1975). “32 V.S.A. § 9744(a) (1). No violation of the interstate commerce clause has been demonstrated.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 32, § 9744(a)(2) — 1 case
Bigelow v. Dep't of Taxes, 652 A.2d 985 (Vt. 1994). “§ 9773(1) *35 because he did not purchase the boat at retail, (2) the Department could not prove that he used the boat in Vermont for at least thirty days, the statutory period giving rise to liability under 32 V.S.A. § 9744(a)(2), and (3) the tax violated the Constitution’s…”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 32, § 9744(a)(3) — 2 cases
Rowe-Genereux, Inc. v. Dep't of Taxes, 411 A.2d 1345 (Vt. 1980). “32 V.S.A. § 9744(a)(3). Relying on the definitions contained in the sales and use tax statutory scheme, the State argues that the sales of furniture and carpet by Rowe were “Vermont sales” and that, therefore, they are subject to the Vermont sales tax.”
Morton Bldgs., Inc. v. Dep't of Taxes, 705 A.2d 1384 (Vt. 1997). “…tax was paid in another state is exempt from use taxation if the other sate allows a corresponding exemption. See 32 VS.A. § 9744(a)(3).”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 32, § 9744(b) — 1 case
In Re R.S. Audley, Inc., 562 A.2d 1046 (Vt. 1989). “The Department argues, however, that 32 V.S.A. § 9744(b) requires that a business in taxpayer’s position “shall not be deemed a nonresident.”
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.