“The rights of use and possession which Chrysler had were derived from its contract of lease ... and were not incident to ownership_”
How later courts described this case
- “The rights of use and possession which Chrysler had were derived from its contract of lease ... and were not incident to ownership_”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
FOURNET, Chief Justice
(concurring).
While it seems illogical that one using in this state tangible personal property of which he is the owner must pay a use tax of 1% of the cost of the item, whereas one using this same property for the identical purpose under a lease agreement with a subsidiary of the owner, or any third party, need pay a tax of 1% on only the gross profits derived from the leased property, or on the price paid for the rental thereof, I feel, nevertheless, constrained to concur with the views expressed in the majority opinion, for, irrespective of any views I might entertain with respect to the definition of the word “use” in Section 1(e) 1 (“ ‘Use’ means and includes the exercise of any rights o.r power over tangible personal property incident to the ownership thereof,” if not otherwise limited or explained), as has been ably demonstrated in the majority opinion, the ordinance itself recognizes that although it is the use that is being taxed, the two categories of users ■ — owners and lessees — sought to be reached are to be taxed on a different rate basis, that is, cost in the case of owners, profit or rent in the case of lessees. (The emphasis has been supplied.)