PACIFIC PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY v. STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION (1957)

In the petition for rehearing, respondent urges that this court in its opinion declares that [309 P.2d 867] ‘Upon substantial evidence, the court found: ‘* * * that said transfer of property, as provided for in said exchange agreement, was not a sale of property at retail such as is contemplated by and referred to in Section 6051 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, but was an occasional sale within the meaning of that term as used in Sections 6367 and 6006.5 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, and as contemplated by the pertinent law of California. * * * The distribution of said machinery and equipment was not a taxable transaction and the said tax thereon was unlawful, invalid and paid under protest by plaintiff’', and that, nevertheless, ‘* * * decides this litigation and reverses the judgment of the lower court which the court states was predicated upon substantial evidence’.

We regard the portion of the findings above quoted that said exchange of equipment “was an occasional sale within the meaning of that term used in Sections 6367 and 6006.5 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, and as contemplated by the pertinent law of California” as an erroneous conclusion of law from the probative facts found.

The petition for rehearing is denied.

PER CURIAM.