New York Court of Appeals, 1986

Matter of U-Need-A-Roll Off Corp. v. New York State Tax Comm'n

New York Court of Appeals · Decided February 6, 1986 · Wachtler and Judges Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone and Hancock, Jr., Concur

67 N.Y.2d 690; 499 N.Y.S.2d 921; 490 N.E.2d 840; 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 16628

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

Waste Management of Colorado, Inc. v. City of Commerce City (Colo. App. 2010)
American Totalisator Co. v. Dubno (Conn. 1989)
Matter of Washington Sq. Hotel LLC v. Tax Appeals Trib. of The State of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
AGL Welding Supply Co. v. Commissioner of Taxation & Finance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
Waste Management of New York, Inc. v. Tax Appeals Tribunal (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
Atlas Linen Supply Co. v. Chu (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
Valley Welding Supply Co. v. Chu (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
Greene & Kellogg, Inc. v. Chu (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.