Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ******************************************************

HVT, INC. v. PAMELA LAW, COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE SERVICES (SC 18296)
Norcott, Palmer, Zarella, McLachlan, Eveleigh and Vertefeuille, Js. Argued January 6--officially released April 19, 2011

Linda L. Morkan, with whom were Christine E. Bromberg and, on the brief, Richard W. Tomeo, for the appellant (plaintiff). Robert W. Clark, assistant attorney general, with

whom were Louis P. Bucari, Jr., and, on the brief, Richard Blumenthal, former attorney general, for the appellee (defendant). Charles H. Lenore and Daniel L. Gottfried filed a brief for the Association of Consumer Vehicle Lessors as amicus curiae.

Opinion

NORCOTT, J. The sole issue in this appeal is whether vehicle registration renewal fees (renewal fees) paid directly to the department of motor vehicles (department) by lessees under motor vehicle lease agreements (leases) qualify as the lessor's ``gross receipts'' pursuant to General Statutes

Download HVT, Inc. v. Law.pdf

Connecticut Law