Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
"one would have expected defendant to argue" s/b plaintiff to argue ...". Netflix is plaintiff; City of Loveland is defendant ("respondent"). NB. The article does not supply Loveland brief.

p3-, 8 - 24 of plaintiff's brief identifies Loveland construction of audit and assessment of tax owed from Colorado statutes.

8. The Notice states that sales tax is due from Plaintiff on "sales/rental of tangible personal property" for which the sales tax was not charged to the customers or remitted to the City.

[emphasis added]

Plaintiff's argument @ 23-24 for indemnity relies on purportedly undefined terms, and semantic values, of "corporeal," "possession," and "use" EXCLUDING categorical definition  "all ... products and commodities" provided by citation to the language.

Doubtless because arguing that "service" exchanged for money ("consideration") is NOT a commodity --"something produced for commerce"-- ergo NOT a "tangible personal property" is more difficult to defend. The service produces a specific, "corporeal" product. < wipes tears >

DICTION, not emojis must adapt or die, ppl!

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Tue Oct 10th, 2017 at 04:38:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:

Display:

Occasional Series