Re: State Sales Tax/Two Cities

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Two Cities on March 01, 1998 at 12:08:56:

In Reply to: Re: State Sales Tax/Two Cities posted by B. Morris on March 01, 1998 at 11:27:14:

: To Two Cities

: From B. Morris

: Thanks for you message regarding the Sales Tax situation. You pose some interesting thoughts.
: Another point that has aroused some local interest is that we live in a small Sothwestern County in Colo. but the summons is for the City and County of Denver, even though the alleged violation took place here. Could this be a jurisdictional dispute.

I wouldn't know.
Is there a case #?
The assault on the pure trust contract is what interests me. Even though
it is a 'round about' way. I guess the trust contract isn't loosing any sleep.
The State of Washington seemingly would want to regard these contracts
as statutory entities referred to as "Massachusets Business Trusts".

In your previous message you said that they are not going after the trust,
but are going after you *personally*, so some reason must exist to attach
this 'personality' to you, afaik.

RCW 84.04.075 "Person." "Person" shall be construed to
include firm, company, association or corporation. [1961 c 15
84.04.075. Prior: 1925 ex.s. c 130 6, part; 1897 c 71 4,
part; 1893 c 124 4, part; 1890 p 531 4, part; 1886 p 48 2,
part; Code 1881 2830, part; RRS 11110, part.]

Colorado might be similar.

RCW 33.08.020 Who may form association. Any individuals
desiring to transact a business of an association may, by complying
with this chapter, become a body corporate for that purpose. [1982
c 3 13; 1945 c 235 3; Rem. Supp. 1945 3717-122. Prior: 1933
c 183 3; 1925 ex.s. c 144 1; 1913 c 110 1; 1903 c 116 1;
1890 p 56 1.]


Severability--1982 c 3: See note following RCW 33.04.002.

RCW 23.90.020 Massachusetts trust defined. A Massachusetts
trust is an unincorporated business association created at common
law by an instrument under which property is held and managed by
trustees for the benefit and profit of such persons as may be or
may become the holders of transferable certificates evidencing
beneficial interests in the trust estate, the holders of which
certificates are entitled to the same limitation of personal
liability extended to stockholders of private corporations. [1959
c 220 2.]

But from what you wrote earlier, it doesn't appear that the trust is the

There must be a reason. Either all business activity was done and carried out
in the name of the trust, in substance as well as form. So how can there be
any activity left, to link the non-performance to?

Missing Sales Tax regulated activity, presumably has at least one transaction
that can be proven to have occured, that is covered by statute.

So, since you find yourself in the position of having perhaps managed one of these
"pure contract trusts", and I am supposing that you did not come by this appointment
by accident, but perhaps through an outlay of some funds. Were no documented defenses
provided, where the integrity of the 'contract', would have to be assailed?

Just curious.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]