Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

00-2824 Zipsort Inc. v. Wisconsin Department of Revenue (55526)

By: dmc-admin//July 23, 2001//

00-2824 Zipsort Inc. v. Wisconsin Department of Revenue (55526)

By: dmc-admin//July 23, 2001//

Listen to this article

“Thus, even assuming the commission has not previously decided whether the application of bar codes to mail is manufacturing under Wis. Stat. sec. 70.995, it is still entitled to some degree of deference. Assuredly, this is not the first time that the commission has been called upon to make sec. 70.995 determinations for business activities that, due to technological advances, were not specifically contemplated by the 14-year-old SIC manual. As we explained in Video Wisconsin, the commission has many years of experience interpreting and implementing the statutory scheme set forth in sec. 70.995, and we are in no better position than the commission to address any perceived gap between the classification standards and recent technology. …

“The first assessment manual question asks: is the activity more similar to those specifically classified as manufacturing by law and the SIC manual, or more similar to those specifically classified as nonmanufacturing by law and the SIC manual? Answering this question, the commission concluded that Zip Sort’s business was more like those classified as nonmanufacturing than manufacturing. The commission noted that the major nonmanufacturing category of ‘Business Services’ includes ‘establishments primarily engaged in rendering services, not elsewhere classified, to business establishments on a contract or fee basis, such as … mailing [or] data processing. …’ The commission determined that Zip Sort’s business was most similar to this category or to another general category, ‘Business Services, Not Elsewhere Classified,’ which includes ‘Presorting mail service.’…

“The commission’s ultimate conclusion is reasonable. Zip Sort’s assertion that its bar codes are tangible personal property, and that because they are tangible personal property, its Milwaukee business is manufacturing property, is no more reasonable. We affirm the circuit court’s decision upholding the commission’s determination.”

Order affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist IV, Dane County, Krueger, J., Dykman, P.J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Kay N. Hunt, Minneapolis, MN

For Respondent: Stephen J. Nicks, Madison

Polls

Should Wisconsin Supreme Court rules be amended so attorneys can't appeal license revocation after 5 years?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests