S & H Transport, Aplt. v. City of York, 140 A.3d 1

S&H Transport is a freight broker based in the City of York that negotiates carriage with licensed common motor carriers, invoices shippers for the full freight charge, remits carrier amounts, and retains a brokerage commission.
S&H paid a $25 City business license fee but reported no gross receipts (2007–2011), claiming exemption under the LTEA public-utility exception, § 301.1(f)(2).
The City audited S&H, assessed business privilege tax on gross receipts (~$118,346.88), and the hearing officer upheld the assessment.
The trial court held S&H’s receipts were excepted under the LTEA because its transactions involved rendering public-utility services.
The Commonwealth Court reversed, finding S&H not “involved” in the rendering of public-utility services; a concurring judge emphasized that property motor carriers’ rates are not fixed and regulated by the PUC.
The Supreme Court affirmed the Commonwealth Court: the LTEA exception applies only where the person/company’s rates and services are fixed and regulated by the Pennsylvania PUC; property carriers’ rates are not PUC-rate-regulated, so S&H cannot claim the exception.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether S&H’s gross receipts from freight-brokerage services are excepted from City business privilege tax under LTEA §301.1(f)(2)	S&H: its transactions "involve" the rendering of public utility services because it negotiates, invoices and collects charges for carriage by PUC-regulated common carriers	City: S&H is a broker (excluded from the PUC definition of common carrier), does not transport goods, and thus is not "involved" in rendering public utility service; even if involved, carriers used are not rate-regulated by PUC	Held: Exception applies only to persons/companies whose rates and services are fixed and regulated by the PUC; property motor carriers’ rates are not rate-regulated, so S&H is not excepted.
Whether the LTEA public-utility exception extends to services or transactions involving non-rate-regulated public utilities (i.e., carriers formerly rate-regulated)	S&H: the statute should cover any "public utility service"; deregulatory changes should not strip the exception; read in pari materia with PUC Code	City: the statute’s phraseology (use of "such") limits exception to PUC-rate-regulated entities and their services/transactions	Held: The statutory text is clear; "such" refers back to entities whose rates/services are fixed and regulated by the PUC. Deregulation removes the exception.

Fish v. Township of Lower Merion, 128 A.3d 764 (Pa. 2015) (standard of review for statutory interpretation; plenary/de novo)
Lynnebrook & Woodbrook Assocs., L.P. v. Borough of Millersville, 963 A.2d 1261 (Pa. 2008) (distinguishes tax exceptions from exemptions; resolve doubts in favor of taxpayer for exceptions)
Ernest Renda Contracting Co. v. Commonwealth, 532 A.2d 416 (Pa. 1987) (construction of public-utility exception in different tax context)
Commonwealth v. McClintic, 909 A.2d 1241 (Pa. 2006) (interpretation of demonstrative adjective "such" referring to antecedent)
In re Brock, 166 A. 785 (Pa. 1933) (discussion on meaning and necessity of the word "such" in statutes)
American Airlines, Inc. v. Commonwealth, Board of Finance & Review, 665 A.2d 417 (Pa. 1995) (statutory interpretation principle: give effect to every word; avoid surplusage)