holding that the taxpayer’s processing of raw honey did not constitute manufacturing because the basic substance with which the taxpayer works, i.e., honey, is not substantially changed and is not, therefore, a new, different, and useful product
How later courts described this case
- holding that the taxpayer’s processing of raw honey did not constitute manufacturing because the basic substance with which the taxpayer works, i.e., honey, is not substantially changed and is not, therefore, a new, different, and useful product
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*227 CAPPY, Justice,
concurring.
I join in the result reached by the majority. I write separately to express my belief that the majority opinion is inconsistent with the opinion of this Court in Ski Roundtop v. Commonwealth, 520 Pa. 227 , 553 A.2d 928 (1989).
In Ski Roundtop , the process by which pressurized air and water are combined to form snow was determined to be manufacturing. In the instant case, the process by which raw honey is filtered, pasteurized and packaged as commercially salable honey was determined not to be manufacturing. The rationale for distinguishing the two cases is that a new product — “snow”—is created by the process undertaken in Ski Roundtop ; whereas, in the present case the appellant began and ended with the same product — “honey”. This is a distinction without a difference.
The result reached in the present case is consistent with our prior decisions in Rieck-McJunkin Dairy Co. v. Pittsburgh School District, 362 Pa. 13 , 66 A.2d 295 (1949), pasteurization of milk is not manufacturing; Commonwealth v. American Ice, 406 Pa. 322 , 178 A.2d 768 (1966), cooling water to make ice is not manufacturing; Commonwealth v. Tetley Tea Co., Inc., 421 Pa. 614 , 220 A.2d 832 (1965), eliminating foreign matter from loose tea is not manufacturing. Ski Roundtop , is not consistent with the majority opinion herein, nor is it consistent with any of the prior decisions just cited.
Ski Roundtop , is an anomaly and should be overruled.
McDERMOTT, J., joins in concurring opinion.