Connect with us

Pennsylvania

Oh, La La! Pennsylvania Court Rules Perrier Is A Soft Drink—And Taxable

Published

on

Oh, La La! Pennsylvania Court Rules Perrier Is A Soft Drink—And Taxable


Sales tax on food and beverages can be complicated. While five states do not have a sales tax (Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire, and Oregon), the rules in states that do impose a sales tax can vary. Sometimes, all it takes is an add-on or leaving the premises to cause an item to go from nontaxable to taxable (and vice versa). In a recent Pennsylvania sales tax case, the question came down to carbonation.

Facts

On June 1, 2019, Jennifer Montgomery purchased a single 16-ounce bottle of Perrier from Sheetz.

Advertisement

(For the uninitiated, Sheetz is a chain of convenience stores—most of which also sell gas—owned by the Sheetz family. What started as a one-store operation in western Pennsylvania in the 1950s is now a 700+ store enterprise in several states. Importantly, as a resident of eastern Pennsylvania, it’s incumbent upon me to mention that, for decades, a Sheetz vs. Wawa debate has raged in the Keystone State. That question wasn’t resolved in this court action but has been resolved for many in the court of public opinion.)

On June 14, 2019, Montgomery purchased another bottle of Perrier from Sheetz. Sheetz collected and remitted a total of 24 cents in sales tax each time. Afterward, Montgomery filed refund petitions with the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue Board of Appeals (Department) seeking a refund of sales tax based upon her belief that Perrier is natural mineral water and not subject to sales tax in the Commonwealth.

(Montgomery also initiated a class action complaint against Sheetz in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, alleging the same. The class action was stayed pending the Department’s decision.)

On October 31, 2019, the Department issued a decision and order denying Montgomery’s refund petitions. The Department concluded that Perrier is carbonated water and subject to sales tax.

Advertisement

Montgomery appealed the decision to the Board, which affirmed the denial of the refund petitions on a different basis.

Law & Guidance

Under Pennsylvania tax law, a six percent sales tax is imposed at retail of tangible personal property.

The tax law also excludes “the sale at retail or use of water” (as a public policy note, water is considered a necessity). The exclusion does not apply to soft drinks. Soft drinks are defined as “[a]ll nonalcoholic beverages, whether carbonated or not, such as soda water, ginger ale, coca cola, lime cola, Pepsi cola, Dr. Pepper, fruit juice when plain or carbonated water, flavoring or syrup is added, carbonated water, orangeade, lemonade, root beer or any and all preparations, commonly referred to as ‘soft drinks.’”

The Department also issues informal guidance, such as statements of policy. One of those statements focused on the taxation on the sale and preparation of food and beverages provides that a soft drink is a “nonalcoholic beverage, in either powder or liquid form, whether or not carbonated, such as soda water, ginger ale, colas, root beer, flavored water, artificially carbonated water, orangeade, lemonade, juice drinks containing less than 25% by volume of natural fruit or vegetable juices, and similar drinks. The term does not include fruit and vegetable juices containing at least 25% by volume of natural fruit or vegetable juice. The term does not include coffee, coffee substitutes, tea, cocoa and milk or non-carbonated drinks made from milk derivatives.”

The guidance also makes clear that soft drinks are subject to sales tax.

Advertisement

Montgomery’s Argument

Montgomery argued that Perrier is excluded from sales tax because it is natural mineral water. She claimed that other guidance, including the statement of policy, is unambiguous that water, including natural mineral water, is not subject to sales tax. She argues that “there is no dispute that Perrier is a sparkling natural mineral water.”

She also claimed that the Department’s informal guidance clarifies that all non-flavored mineral water is exempt from tax and does not distinguish between carbonated and non-carbonated mineral water. She claims that it is well settled that the exclusionary provision must be construed against the Commonwealth and in favor of the taxpayer. That would mean, she argued, that Perrier is sparkling natural mineral water, not carbonated water, and is excluded from sales tax.

Montgomery also argued that Perrier does not qualify for sales tax as a soft drink because it is not artificially carbonated. Noting that the definition in the statement of policy includes “artificially carbonated water,” Montgomery urged the Court to conclude that Perrier contains natural carbonation and is exempt from tax.

Commonwealth’s Arguments

The Commonwealth argued that Perrier is not exempt from tax as water, but is carbonated water. That means, they said, that it falls squarely within the definition of soft drink and is subject to sales tax.

Advertisement

The term “carbonate” means “to combine or infuse with carbon dioxide.” The Commonwealth maintained that Perrier is carbonated water because it is manufactured by combining a specific amount of filtered or scrubbed carbonic gas with still water in an industrial plant setting. The Commonwealth further argued that the process used to carbonate Perrier is the same process used to carbonate Coca-Cola
Coca-Cola
and Pepsi, making it a soft drink.

Finally, the Commonwealth alleged that because Montgomery didn’t have statutory support for her argument, she improperly relied on the statement of policy and other sources—none of which, they claim, supports a finding that Perrier is exempt from tax. The statutory language makes no qualifications for naturally or artificially carbonated water. Instead, the tax laws simply provide that carbonated water, whether naturally or artificially carbonated, is subject to sales tax. That means, the Commonwealth says, even if the Court concludes that Perrier is “naturally carbonated water,” it is still not exempt under the plain language of the law.

Discussion

Judge Wolf says the arguments “bubble down to one question”—whether Perrier is water and exempt from sales tax.

Advertisement

The Court agrees that the tax law unambiguously exempts the sale at retail of water from sales tax. However, the Court disagreed that Perrier qualifies as water.

The Court then offered a science—and geography lesson—of its own, finding:

  • Perrier is sourced from non-flavored mineral water.
  • Perrier comes from underground natural springs near the village of Vergeze in Provence, France.
  • The water in the natural springs from which Perrier is collected is naturally carbonated.
  • Perrier’s carbonic gas and water are independently harvested from different depths within the same geologic formation.
  • The carbonic gas and water in Perrier, collected from natural springs, are combined at the bottling plant.
  • Before the combination, the water in Perrier is chilled, all of the air is removed (a process called deaeration,) and any carbonation is stripped out.
  • Before carbonation, filters or scrubbers remove natural elements and impurities in the carbonic gas and ensure a consistent carbonation level.
  • Similarly, before the combination, impurities are removed from the water.
  • The water then goes through one of two processes—either a carbonated tank or an in-line carbonation process—where carbonic gas is added to the water and the carbonation levels are adjusted to reach the desired amount for the product.
  • The processes used are the same as those for making soft drinks like Coca-Cola and Pepsi. There is no alternative process for carbonating beverages.
  • Following these processes, the product is bottled for sale.

The Court found that when a consumer purchases a bottle of Perrier, the non-flavored mineral water has carbonation.

A finding that mineral water with carbonation is not carbonated water “flies directly in the face of the plain language of the Code,” which treats water and carbonated water differently for sales tax purposes. Perrier, they ruled, is carbonated water as a matter of law and is subject to sales tax as a soft drink.

The Court also rejects Montgomery’s argument that only artificially carbonated water may be taxed as a soft drink. The definition of soft drink in the Code does not contain any natural or artificial qualifications, so Judge Wolf wrote that the argument “does not hold water in the face of the clear and unambiguous statutory language.”

Advertisement

Conclusion

This sort of analysis is often necessary to parse complicated sales tax laws. The taxability (or not) can often turn on something as simple as it did here: bubbles.

In this case, the Court concluded that Perrier is carbonated water and subject to sales taxation as a soft drink. So, drink up, Pennsylvania—just be prepared to pay tax if you’re craving a Perrier.

(Don’t you feel smarter already?)

Advertisement

The case is Jennifer Montgomery v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (No. 336 F.R. 2020).



Source link

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania-born indie rockers Tigers Jaw return with new album release

Published

on

Pennsylvania-born indie rockers Tigers Jaw return with new album release


The chorus for the song “Primary Colors” was something Walsh wrote years ago, with the song’s outro originally being used as a verse.

“And something just wasn’t quite clicking, and everything that I tried felt kind of forced,” Walsh said. “We were all just like, ‘Yeah, there’s something here, but it’s not quite doing what I think it has the potential to do.’”

The band then started toying with the dynamics between the verses and the chorus.

Advertisement

“It just unlocked something for me in the idea where I was like, ‘Wow, this kind of quiet, loud, quiet, loud format really works well with this song,’” Walsh said. “So yeah, it just transformed it instantly into an idea that felt a lot stronger.”

The album was recorded with Grammy-winning producer Will Yip, a relationship still budding from their 2014 album, “Charmer.” Collins said the new album’s sound is “as true as we could be to playing the record live.”

“I wasn’t as tied to the tones that have classically been Tigers Jaw because I think at this point, I’ve just come to this realization that no matter what, if we’re making it, it is Tigers Jaw,” Collins said.

The new album has a “palpable energy” that shares the same spirit as their earlier records, Walsh said. And while “tastes evolve,” the band followed “what feels good.”

“This is the best representation of the band at the time, and it’s almost like a snapshot of us as artists, as people, as a creative entity over this time in our career,” he said.

Advertisement

“Lost On You” is out now through Hopeless Records and is available on vinyl, CD and various streaming platforms.

“Lost On You” was released on March 27, 2026, through Hopeless Records. The album is available on vinyl, CD and various streaming platforms.

On April 16, Tigers Jaw will perform at Union Transfer at 8 p.m. They will be supported by Hot Flash Heat Wave and Creeks, the solo project of Balance and Composure vocalist and guitarist Jon Simmons, who is from Doylestown, Pennsylvania.





Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania court upends mandatory use of life-without-parole for second-degree murder

Published

on

Pennsylvania court upends mandatory use of life-without-parole for second-degree murder


What to Know

  • Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court says the state cannot automatically give life without parole for felony murder without weighing each defendant’s culpability in the killing.
  • The high court on Thursday ordered a new sentencing hearing for Derek Lee over a second-degree conviction, but paused it for four months to give state lawmakers time to consider legislation in response.
  • Pennsylvania law has made people liable for second-degree murder if they participated in an eligible felony that led to death. Life with no possibility of parole has been the only possible sentence.
  • The court says the current rule treats a lookout the same as the person who kills.

Pennsylvania’s high court on Thursday overturned the use of automatic life sentences without parole for people convicted of second-degree murder, saying it violates the state’s constitutional ban on cruel punishment when imposed without a closer look at the defendant’s specific role and culpability.

The court majority ordered resentencing in the case of Derek Lee, convicted of a 2014 killing in Pittsburgh, but the decision also has implications for others among the roughly 1,000 other inmates currently serving similar second-degree murder sentences.

The court’s order was put on hold for four months to give the General Assembly time to “consider appropriate remedial measures.” In a footnote, the justices said they were ruling on Lee’s sentence and not addressing “questions of retroactivity.”

Prison reform groups hailed it as a landmark decision, while the Allegheny County district attorney’s office said it will follow the court’s order.

Advertisement

Pennsylvania law has made people liable for second-degree murder if they participated in an eligible felony that led to death, and life without parole has been the only possible sentence.

“The mandatory penalty scheme of life without parole for all offenders convicted of second degree murder fails to assess individual culpability regarding the intent to kill, and mandates the same punishment regardless of that culpability,” wrote Chief Justice Debra Todd in the lead opinion. She characterized it as not distinguishing “between the lookout, and the killer who pulls the trigger.”

The state high court’s decision comes after years of advocacy to undo mandatory life without parole sentences both in Pennsylvania and nationally. Nazgol Ghandnoosh of the Washington-based Sentencing Project said she counts 11 states and the federal system as having such laws for that kind of crime, sometimes called felony murder. Several states — California, Colorado and Minnesota — have moved away from that sentencing framework in recent years, she said.

Justice Kevin Dougherty noted in a separate opinion that unlike those convicted of first-degree murder, defendants serving life without parole for second-degree murder have “never been found by a judge or jury to have harbored the specific intent to kill” and may not have had “any involvement whatsoever with the actual killing. He or she does not even have to expect or foresee that a life may be taken.”

Lee’s lawyers had wanted the court to rule that life without parole sentences are unconstitutional for all second-degree murder convictions in Pennsylvania, said Quinn Cozzens, a staff attorney for the Abolitionist Law Center, which helped represent Lee. Instead, the court ruled that trial judges must examine the individual circumstances of a defendant’s case to decide which sentence is most appropriate, including the potential of life without parole.

Advertisement

The state’s public defenders’ association said the ruling will generate new post-conviction litigation and require them to do more investigation as well as develop “strategic litigation” to get the decision to apply retroactively.

A jury convicted Lee of second-degree murder but acquitted him of first-degree murder in 44-year-old Leonard Butler’s shooting death. Butler was shot in a struggle over a gun with Lee’s codefendant, Paul Durham.

Prosecutors argued it should be up to state lawmakers and the executive branch to address the policy issues surrounding second-degree murder sentences. Todd wrote that while the district attorney’s office “acknowledges that there may be persuasive arguments why a non-slayer should not be held to the same degree of culpability as the slayer, it stresses that these are policy decisions for the General Assembly.”

Cozzens urged lawmakers to “address this constitutional violation, given that the court granted them the opportunity to do so.”

Rep. Tim Briggs, a suburban Philadelphia Democrat who chairs the state House Judiciary Committee, said he planned to engage with Senate Republicans on potential legislation in response.

Advertisement

Briggs said he wanted to have decision apply retroactively, to give people serving life “for being the getaway driver” to “have the opportunity to have their facts looked at again.”

“I think inaction leaves a lot of this up to the courts to decide. I don’t feel comfortable doing that,” Briggs said. “We have a policymaking role here.”

Justice Sallie Mundy wrote that Lee “willingly participated in an armed home invasion and robbery, and purposefully engaged in assaultive behavior in the form of tasing and pistol-whipping the victim.” She said Lee and Durham “arguably kidnapped the victims by forcing them into the basement” and it will be up to the county judge to decide if Lee’s life-without-parole sentence is appropriate.

Todd’s opinion, citing an advocacy group, said 73% of those convicted of felony murder in Pennsylvania were 25 or younger when the killing occurred and almost 70% are Black people.

Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro also responded to the ruling on X.

Advertisement





Source link

Continue Reading

Pennsylvania

Teen boys in Pennsylvania get probation after using AI to create fake nude photos of classmates

Published

on

Teen boys in Pennsylvania get probation after using AI to create fake nude photos of classmates


Lancaster Country Day School in Lancaster, Pa., Wednesday, March 25, 2026. (AP Photo/Matt Rourke)

LANCASTER, Pa. — Two teenage boys who used artificial intelligence to create fake nude photos of their classmates at an exclusive private school in Pennsylvania received probation Wednesday after dozens of victims described the images’ traumatizing effect on them.

The boys were 14 at the time. They admitted this month that they made about 350 images, showing at least 59 girls under 18, along with other victims who so far have not been identified.

Authorities said the boys took images of the girls from school photos, yearbooks, Instagram, TikTok and FaceTime chats in 2023 and 2024, and morphed them with images of adults depicting nudity or sexual activity.

More than 100 students and parents from Lancaster Country Day School were in court to hear victims describe the shock of having to identify their own faces in pornographic photos to detectives. Juvenile proceedings in Pennsylvania are normally closed, but this was opened by the judge, providing an unusual opportunity for the community to be seen and heard.

Advertisement

The girls described the fallout — anxiety attacks, a loss of trust, problems focusing on schoolwork and a fear that the images may someday surface in unexpected ways.

The two young men stood stone-faced throughout, flanked by their lawyers and parents, as they were called pedophiles, “sick and twisted” and perverted.

“I will never understand why they did this,” one victim told Judge Leonard Brown, saying it “destroyed my innocence.”

One young woman told Brown “how excruciating it is to bring these feelings up again and again.” Another choked back tears as she excoriated one of the defendants for expressing “fake empathy” as girls confided with him about their pain, before it became known that he had been part of creating and disseminating the images. Still another said all of her friends transferred schools, and that she “needed trauma therapy to even walk around my neighborhood.”

The defendants declined several opportunities to comment to the judge, who said he had not heard either boy take responsibility or apologize.

Advertisement

“This has been a regrettable, long, torturous process for everyone involved,” said Heidi Freese, defense attorney for one of the defendants. “There were very interesting, underlying legal issues surrounding the charges in this case and those will be decided on a different day in a different case.”

Brown ordered each to perform 60 hours of community service, have no contact with the victims and pay an unspecified amount of restitution. If they don’t have any additional legal problems, Brown said, the case can be expunged after two years.

As he imposed his sentence, Brown said that if they were adults, they probably would be headed for state prison. He said they should “take this opportunity to really examine” themselves.

The resolution of the Pennsylvania case comes days after three teenagers in Tennessee sued Elon Musk’s xAI, claiming the company’s Grok tools morphed their real photos into explicitly sexual images. The high school students are seeking class-action status to represent what the lawsuit says are thousands of people who were similarly victimized as minors.

The scandal in Pennsylvania led to a student protest, criminal charges against the two teenagers and the departure of leaders at the school, which says it has about 600 students K-12, class sizes averaging just 12 kids, and “an endowment in excess of $25 million.”

Advertisement

Nadeem Bezar, a Philadelphia lawyer who represents at least 10 of the victims, said Tuesday he expects to file a claim “against the school and anybody else we think has culpability in these deepfakes being created and disseminated.”

He said he has not yet seen the photos but expects the legal process to determine “exactly when and where and how the school knew, how the boys created these images, what platforms they used to create these images and how they were disseminated.”

As AI has become accessible and powerful, lawmakers across the country have passed laws aimed at barring deepfakes.

President Donald Trump signed the Take it Down Act last year, making it illegal to publish intimate images including deepfakes without consent, and requiring websites and social media sites to remove such material within 48 hours of being notified by a victim.

Forty-six states now have laws addressing deepfakes, with legislation introduced in the remaining four — Alaska, Missouri, New Mexico and Ohio — according to the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen.

Advertisement

___

Associated Press writers Geoff Mulvihill in Haddonfield, New Jersey, and Holly Ramer in Concord, New Hampshire, contributed.





Source link

Continue Reading

Trending