# Heintz Investment Co. v. Tax Review Board

> Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · November 30, 1973 · 11 Pa. Commw. 146

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6361501

## Case

- **Full name:** Heintz Investment Company v. Tax Review Board of Philadelphia
- **Court:** Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** November 30, 1973
- **Citations:** 11 Pa. Commw. 146; 312 A.2d 829; 1973 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 460
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Bowman
- **Judges:** Blatt, Bowman, Crtjmlish, Kramer, Mencer, Rogers, Wilkinson
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6361501

## Opinion text

Dissenting Opinion bx
President Judge Bowman :
I dissent. In my opinion a corporation which has for its sole corporate purpose the production of income or gain from property owned by it is engaged in business within the meaning of the taxing ordinance in question. That it performs and accomplishes its sole purpose for existence through the services of investment counselors, brokers or other independent contractors neither diminishes nor enlarges its involvement. I distinguish A. H. Geuting Company v. City of Phila delphia, 1 Pa. D. & C. 2d 341 (1954), as did the Supreme Court in Tax Review Board v. Brine Corpora tion, 414 Pa. 488 , 200 A. 2d 883 (1964), which said that the corporation there in question did nothing but conserve a piece of real estate retained by it after selling its business. Appellee here had a similar experience but then chose to change its corporate charter to an investment purpose and thereafter engaged in that restated purpose. Surely it was not then merely conserving property previously sold nor could it be appropriately *153 described as passive with respect to its corporate purpose. The overall objective of the corporation leads me to conclude that appellee is engaged in business. I would, therefore, affirm the lower court.
Judge Crtjmlish, Jr. joins in this dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6361501. Public record. Not legal advice.