*1 noncompliance Grigg’s conscious on part. Kentucky COMMONWEALTH ex rel. LUCKETT, J. E. Commissioner of apply Even if this court were to Revenue, Appellant, rule that the insured must done “all have v. that he could do” would not be unreason- WLEX-TV, Corporation, INC., a able hold to that there was substantial com- al., Appellees. et pliance Grigg here. did not have available form, application to him a and when formal Kentucky. Appeals Court agent’s he went cause the to to office Nov. 1968. change beneficiary ap- to be no made plication was made available to him be- Rehearing As Modified on Denial of agent agent cause the was not there. The March 1969. subsequently get application tried to an to
Grigg, Grigg but before that killed accomplished. thus was The situation
comparable to that in Pikeville National Company Shirley,
Bank
& Trust
not
that to done “all that order have do,” camp required
he could application
agent’s doorstep got he until required
form. he to write Nor was company agent had indicated previous discussions that the transaction
would be handled him.
There is some discussion the briefs
relative to statements various made relatives,
Grigg to friends and before policies agent’s
after left he with the
wife, “going he as whether was to have policies changed” got
his all of or “have
my policies changed.” insurance It suf- say
ficient that there was evidence finding Grigg thought he
warrant a accomplished change,
had the desired only
being significant might as'it relate to thought whether he he had effect everything he needed to do to
done change. So could not hold finding
trial court made an erroneous
fact.
It is that the trial court our conclusion
correctly adjudged that there had been an beneficiary. change
effective judgment is affirmed. MONTGOMERY,
All except concur C.
J. *2 industry.” expanded
Machinery new for appealed from. judgment We reverse imposed avoided is sought tax to be 139.310, quote: which we KRS on hereby imposed “An excise tax is consumption storage, use or other property tangible personal in this state of purchased July after for on or use, consumption in storage, or other percent this at the rate of three state property.” price of the sale Appellee certain ex- WLEX-TV contends emptions “use” payment from the of this provided by 139.480(8) relieve KRS payment purchases of taxes on lists, among involved. The statute kinds property exempt that are for used “ * * * purposes, Machinery certain (8) expanded for industry.” new and By de- legislature KRS 139.170 the has “Machinery expanded fined for new and industry” to mean:
“ ** * machinery directly used [T]hat Revenue, process, Shapiro, Department which is Paul Atty. Riley, incorporated plant Asst. the first time Frankfort, for S. William Frankfort, Revenue, state, facilities Gen., established in this Dept, of which replace machinery does not appellant. plants.” such Calk, Gess, Mattingly, Saunier Charles appellee. Atchison, Lexington, for & Is a “man ufacturing process” meaning within the Williams, N. Zingman, Edgar A. James question, KRS 139.170? That is Louisville, Sloss, & Wyatt, Jr., Grafton our answer is the negative. curiae, Kentucky Broadcasters amicus Ass’n, Inc. specific question presented here not been jurisdiction, decided in this al- HILL, Judge. P.
EDWARD though appellees contend that court this in Kentucky Buechel, Electric Co. v. an validity of appeal involves This Ky. 660, 143 (1912), long S.W. 58 took a Inc., for WLEX-TV, against assessment step irrevocable in this direction when certain KRS 139.310 under use taxes it decided that a coal-burning, electric this made out property purchases generating plant engaged was in “manu- operations in its television to be used state facturing.” We find Electric The assessment Kentucky. Lexington, Buechel, Co. supra, to be of little assist- Kentucky Board appealed to ance present case. In Buechel as- upheld The board Appeals. Tax there coal, water, was involved the use of the circuit taken to Appeal was sessment. and heat produce entirely new, though re- entered court, where invisible, product electricity. — holding the board action of versing the assessed attempted Perhaps property we should go in reverse here 139.480(8) and KRS “exempt under examine such definitions of “manu- factoring” as have given by been the alleged manufactured past court in decisions. In Louis- subjected article is that determines the ville Howard, ex Ky. 687, rel. v. 208 question, but rather the character and S.W.2d this court defined “manu- kind produced, of article that is after be- facturing” as the taking “something ing so subjected, decisive is the fact.” practically unsuitable for Lexington Co., common Lexington *3 v. Leader 193 and changes it adapt so Ky. 107, 31, as to it to such 235 supra, S.W. in 33, which it common use.” printing held that publishing the and of newspaper a manufacturing is not a good many attempts After a by this court process. opinion Lexington The to the “manufacturing” define word or goes Leader case that the on to reiterate 1 manufacturing process realizing and the purpose exempting manufacturing equip- of difficulty so, doing finally got in around ment from ad the valorem taxation statute the understanding to “common mankind” of encourage to the location of manufac- Lexington definition contained in of turing plants in this It seems us state. to Lexington Co., 107, Ky. v. Leader 235 193 139.480(8) purpose. that KRS the same 31, quote S.W. page which we at 32: 1922, Lexington It is in true that after the decided, legisla- Leader case had been the “Usually that be meaning will attached ture amended the in statute there corresponds to them which with ‘the com- specifically “manufacturing” and to defined in understanding mon of view mankind/ printing newspaper publishers include and subject of the matter in connection with plants, not, as the doing but in it did so words, they which are In other used. here, appellee company argues “overrule” interpretation adopted that to which is be merely Lexington opinion; it the Leader agrees popular with the sense in which liberty changed do to statute, the as it is understood, they rather are used and than Lex- in the Fundamentally, this instance. according meaning; to their scientific law, ington and we Leader case is still the especially in construc- and is so the applies think it this case. to including exemptions tion of tax laws therefrom.” ex the purpose ultimate parlance, In common broad- television posi competitive emption is enhance the to electricity, light, casting the involves other states against as tion of this state image transmit produce and sound and to expansion and encouraging the location receiving having and a set sound for those “manufacturing” whose industries the the desiring and in” and “tune receive employment processes require volume program. Generally television that might seem people. At first blush it pay advertising relies commercial opinions Electric Co. program productions. the bill for its 58, 660, Ky. 143 S.W. Buechel, 146 programs are allotted Its sent out over 687, Ky. Howard, 306 of Louisville v. charge
channels free of
would-be
genera
522, holding that the
208 S.W.2d
receiver.
by a
electricity
tion
transformation of
manu
public
corporation constitutes
service
under
important
facturing
One of the
circumstanc
not be sustainable
would
However,
“manufacturing”
theory.
amount
construing
ines
the word
that
the
tax-exemption
power
the
a direct
used in a
statute is
is
as
available electric
Moreover,
apparent
industry.
objective
legislature in
the
vital
inducement to
measured
product
that is
enacting
power
And “it
not the number
a
it.
is
electric
is
directly
customer
processes or
kinds of treatment
and sold
to the
the various
out
(E.D.
Co.,
interesting
F.
re
and instructive
Rheinstrom & Sons
Ky.1913).
1. For an
subject
cases
the
view of the earlier
“manufacturing,”
re
In
see
is
of what
opera-
production
delivered,
facturing
processing
same manner
whom it
or
is
KRS
goods.
product
tangible
provisions
end
tion”
other
under
as
that
measurable
court found
139.480(8)
of television is neither
nor
? The lower
far,
persons
purchased
it,
by
agree.
thus
it was. I
it
whom is transmitted.
If
Gas
Covington
early
As
as 1886
a
converting
impulses
form
electric
Covington,
Light
City of
Company v.
set
can
received
a television
94,
recognized
Ky.
8 KLR
this court
then so
manufacturing,
constitutes
does
manufacturing
gas
a
company
that a
process by
set con-
it
made
company
gas
raw
took
tele-
picture,
a
in which event
verts them to
use.
likewise
suitable for domestic
We
exempt from
vision sets also are
Buechel, 146
held in
Electric Co. v.
Ky.
they machinery used in manu-
are
because
generation
143 S.W.
analysis, facturing process. In
last
because
electricity was
*4
a mes-
function
television is
transmit
of
it
electric
transforming heat into
involved
manufactures
sage or communication.
It
power.
ex rel.
In
of Louisville
a
messages in about
sense that
the same
522,
Howard,
208
we
S.W.2d
We
common carrier manufactures travel.
nothing
held that
which did
transformers
character and
not believe it
is “the
do
more
and
voltage
than raise
lower
or
product
kind” manufactured
envisioned
of
transform
current to
were
AC
DC current
question.
by
in
the statutes
machinery
the
manufacturing.
for
In
used
opinion in
unmindful of the
are not
We
opinion,
course of that
we said:
Corporation, 271 Ala.
State v. Television
defini-
yardstick of our
“Applying the
not
(1961).
are
day. previous It held had cases
machinery used in the of elec- generating
tricity was used
process. it was faced with When
problem radio of whether the creation of was manufacturing process,
waves
held that it very reason sound
that it had held previously generation
electricity manufacturing. State See
v. Television Corporation, 271 Ala. golden running So.2d 603. The thread subject decisions seems
to be whether not or an unusable raw
material is usable, converted salable into a
product. previously Since have held electricity creation of manufac-
turing the transforming electricity
is manufacturing it inescapable seems to me
but that the creation of radio waves for *5 purpose transmission the mar-
ket is nothing less than the
manufacturing.
For the reasons, foregoing I respectfully
dissent.
TRIMBLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPER- VISORS, etc., Appellants, MULLIKIN, Appellee.
Christine Appeals Kentucky.
Court of 29, 1968. Nov. True, Bobby Bedford, appellants. Rehearing Denial of As Modified on Floyd, Berry New Berry, M. & John March 1969. Castle, appellee. HILL, Judge.
EDWARD P. upset- appeal This Board ting order appellee’s fixing the Appeals value Tax pur- $60,000 at for 1966 farm 331-acre $3,100. acres of 89 poses and a farm