You are here: / / IF PETIONER HAD PURCHASED CONCRETE AS A PART OF A SERVICE FOR THE INSTALLATION...

IF PETIONER HAD PURCHASED CONCRETE AS A PART OF A SERVICE FOR THE INSTALLATION OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS, THE PURCHASE WOULD HAVE BEEN EXEMPT FROM SALES TAX; BUT PETITIONER PURCHASED THE CONTRACT IN “RAW” FORM AND PETITIONER’S EMPLOYEES AND SUBCONTRACTORS USED IT TO BUILD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS; THE PURCHASE OF THE CONCRETE WAS THEREFORE SUBJECT TO SALES TAX (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the petitioner was not entitled to an exemption from sales tax on concrete purchased from suppliers. The work to install the capital improvements made from the concrete was done by petitioner’s employees and subcontractors. Because the concrete suppliers merely supplied the concrete in raw form, the sales tax exemption for the installation of capital improvements did not apply:

The purchase would be exempt from sales tax … if it was not for the concrete itself and was instead for the service of “installing property which, when installed, will constitute an addition or capital improvement to real property, property or land” … . * * *

… [T]he hearing testimony of petitioner’s own president left little doubt that it was petitioner’s employees or its subcontractors, and not its concrete suppliers, who were installing capital improvements. Petitioner’s president testified, in particular, that petitioner’s employees or subcontractors performed all preparatory work for the installation, doing necessary excavation work, building the formwork and flatwork to shape the poured concrete and installing rebar and other supports for it. The concrete suppliers would prepare the amount and type of concrete required, arrive at the site, and pour or pump the concrete into the areas that had been prepared. Petitioner then did “anything that need[ed] to be done” to ensure that the poured concrete would form the structure contemplated by the project specifications, such as smoothing the concrete and installing keys, details or lines in the concrete before it set, and petitioner bore responsibility for correcting any problems with the final product. Matter of M&Y Devs. Inc. v Tax Appeals Trib. of the State of N.Y., 2022 NY Slip Op 04600, Third Dept 7-14-22

Practice Point: Concrete purchased as part of a service which not only supplies the concrete but builds capital improvements with the concrete is exempt from sales tax. But here petitioner purchased the concrete which was then used by petitioner’s employees and subcontractors to build the capital improvements. The “capital improvement’ sales-tax exemption did not apply.

 

You might also like
THE BRAKES FAILED ON A LIMOUSINE OWNED BY PETITIONER AND 20 PEOPLE DIED; PETITIONER PLED TO 20 COUNTS OF CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE AND, PURSUANT TO A PLEA AGREEMENT, WAS SENTENCED TO PROBATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICE; BECAUSE OF A TECHNICAL DEFECT IN THE SENTENCE, PETITIONER APPEARED FOR RESENTENCING BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE WHO DECIDED TO IMPOSE PRISON TIME; PETITIONER WITHDREW HIS PLEA, THE MATTER WAS SET FOR TRIAL AND PETITIONER BROUGHT THIS ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING TO REINSTATE THE ORIGINAL SENTENCE; THE PETITION WAS DENIED OVER A DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).
THE SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION WAS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE BECAUSE IT DID NOT INCLUDE AN OFFENSE CHARGED IN THE FELONY COMPLAINT OR A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE (THIRD DEPT).
AUTHORIZATION TO FORCE FEED INMATE FOR THE DURATION OF HIS INCARCERATION PROPERLY GRANTED.
PETITIONER, A POLICE OFFICER, WAS ASKED BY HER SUPERVISOR TO PICK UP A LARGE BREAKFAST ORDER FOR THE PRECINCT; PETITIONER SLIPPED AND FELL ON ICE IN THE PARKING LOT WHEN RETURNING WITH THE ORDER; PETITIONER WAS “IN SERVICE” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW WHEN SHE FELL (THIRD DEPT).
IF THE PEOPLE WERE AWARE OF DEFENDANT’S LOCATION OUT-OF-STATE AND DID NOT EXERCISE “DUE DILIGENCE” IN SECURING HER RETURN TO NEW YORK THE SPEEDY TRIAL CLOCK WOULD NOT STOP RUNNING BASED SOLELY ON HER ABSENCE; HEARING REQUIRED (THIRD DEPT).
LAWSUIT SEEKING TO ENJOIN JUDICIAL SALARY INCREASES WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT). ​
ADMISSION AND ALLOCUTION DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PETITION DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED MOTHER’S VISITATION PETITION FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

AN APPEAL FROM A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION DECISION WHICH IS INTERLOCUTORY... HERE THE APPELLATE COURT SEVERED PORTIONS OF THE SEARCH WARRANT AS OVERBROAD;...