dissenting:
I would affirm the decisions of the district court and the court of appeals. The district court and the court of appeals, in my view, properly concluded that Martin Marietta’s purchase of special tooling and test equipment was exempt from Colorado use tax and Regional Transportation District tax, pursuant to section 39-26-203(l)(b), 16B C.R.S. (1982). The issue in this case is whether property purchased at wholesale, used, and subsequently transferred to the federal government pursuant to contract, is exempt from use tax under the purchase for resale exception.
The Colorado use tax shall not be assessed upon
the storage, use, or consumption of any taxable personal property purchased for resale in this state, either in its original form or as an ingredient of a manufactured or compounded product, in the regular course of a business.
Section 39-26-203(l)(b).1 The statute is Clear and unambiguous. If property is purchased for resale, then it is not subject to a use tax, regardless of the extent or purpose of its use. Resale occurs when the purchaser of property sells that property to a second purchaser. The definition of resale is not dependent on the primary purpose of a purchase determined by the degree of use by the original purchaser.
Martin Marietta purchased tools and testing equipment from a variety of vendors, then transferred title of this property to the federal government in exchange for compensation. Because Martin Marietta purchased the tools and testing equipment with the purpose of resale, and subsequently transferred title, it is exempt from a Colorado use tax or Regional Transportation District tax.
I respectfully dissent.
. The majority’s requirement that an item purchased for resale must be resold in an unaltered condition and basically unused is in direct conflict with section 39-26-203(l)(b).