Vermax at oral argument, the propriety of the tax assessment essentially turns on one issue: Whether Vermax was the ultimate consumer of the raw materials it purchased and used in manufacturing its p ng Division, 860 P.2d 324, 327-28 (Utah 1993), the Utah Supreme Court held that, under the facts of that case, the contractor was not the ultimate consumer of the personal property because the owner of the project, not the contractor, purchased and also actually and constructively owned the personal property before it was converted into real property. The Thoru/p court made clear that one who does not own the property cannot become its ultimate consumer even if that entity converts the property into real property. Id.; see also Arco Elec. v. State Tax Comm’n, 860 P.2d 330, 331 (Utah 1993) (<HOLDING>). In the present case, Vermax asserts that
holding that the essential purpose of use tax is the recoupment of lost sales tax revenue holding that it was not the taxpayers responsibility to pursue the different tax units to which the illegally levied county tax was proportioned as the taxpayer was entitled to recover the full amount of the tax from the county the collecting entity holding that state legislature should determine whether to cure discriminatory tax by enforcing tax as to all or forgiving tax in its entirety holding a constitutional defense to a tax does not exempt a plaintiff from the mandatory procedure for challenging the tax set out in  105267 holding contractor not responsible for use tax where tax exempt entity purchased the materials used