# Kollasch v. Adamany

> Wisconsin Supreme Court · December 1, 1981 · 104 Wis. 2d 552

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9725559

## Case

- **Full name:** Sisters Mary Joanne Kollasch, Mary David Walgenbach, Mary Raphael Hilger, Mary Concepta Tritz, Mary Philomena Head, Mary Baptista Schlitz, Mary Camillus Vandervoorde, Mary Grace Verzani, Mary Cora Marie Kesner, Mary Patricia Delaney, Mary Agatha Bermel, Mary Margaret Mary Finney, Mary Helen Goebel, Mary Martha Glaser, Mary Joyce Jungles, Mary Loretta Harvey, Mary Danielle Walgenbach, Mary Marian Siedschlag, Mary Sylvia Kimberley, and Sisters of St. Benedict, of Madison, Wisconsin, a Wisconsin Corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellants-Petitioners, v. David W. Adamany, Secretary of the Department of Revenue, Defendant-Respondent
- **Court:** Wisconsin Supreme Court
- **Decided:** December 1, 1981
- **Citations:** 104 Wis. 2d 552; 313 N.W.2d 47; 1981 Wisc. LEXIS 3045
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Abrahamson
- **Judges:** Day, Coffey, Abrahamson
- **Cited by:** 133 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/9725559

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that a religious order that served and charged for meals was exempt from sales tax because the preparing, serving, and sharing of meals was a religious act for the order
- recognizing that a seller “engag[es] in a transaction for which the gross receipts are subject to the sales tax”

## Opinion text

SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J.
(dissenting). Although I may think it unwise to impose a sales tax on the Sisters, the question of who should be taxed is one for the legislature, not for the courts. The issue before this court is whether under the present statutes the Sisters are taxable.
The majority interprets the statutes as requiring two types of persons to pay a tax on the gross receipts of nonexempt retail sales: Those “engaged in the business of making sales” (sec. 77.51(7) (b), Stats.) and those “who are not in the business of making sales” but are engaged in “mercantile” transactions. (Sec. 77.51(7) (a)) Supra,, p. 568. The majority does not define what it means by “mercantile transactions.” Nor does the majority tell us how a person “engaged in the business of making sales” differs from a seller engaged in “mercantile transactions.” Without defining the terms, the majority cannot explain why the Sisters are not included within at least one of these terms. For these reasons, I find the majority opinion unpersuasive.
I would affirm the decision of the court of appeals holding that, although the Sisters’ work is religiously rather than commercially motivated, the sales of meals by the Sisters fall within the tax statutes and the tax is not unconstitutional.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9725559. Public record. Not legal advice.