Justia Missouri Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Macon County Emergency Services Board (Board) filed a petition for declaratory judgment against the Macon County Commission (Commission) seeking a judgment that it was entitled to receive a share of Mason County’s use tax revenue proportionate to its share of the county sales tax revenue. The circuit court denied the Board’s request. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Mo. Rev. Stat. 144.757 does not direct third-class counties as to the disbursement of county use tax revenue, it is within the discretion of the Commission whether to share that revenue with the Board. View "Macon County Emergency Servs. Bd v. Macon County Comm’n" on Justia Law

Office Depot, Inc., which is incorporated in the state of Delaware and headquartered in Florida, contracts with a printer to have catalogs printed in Illinois and Indiana. The Postal Service delivers the catalogs to customers in Missouri. Office Depot accrued and paid almost $85,000 in Missouri use tax based on the cost of the printed catalogs between 2008 and 2010. Office Depot filed an application for use tax refund for the amount it paid. The Director of Revenue denied Office Depot’s refund claim. The Administrative Hearing Commission reversed, finding that Office Depot was entitled to a full refund because use tax may be imposed only if Office Depot used the catalogs in Missouri but that Office Depot did not. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Office Depot did not exercise any right or power incident to ownership or control over the catalogs in Missouri, and therefore, it did not “use” the catalogs in Missouri. Consequently, Office Depot was entitled to a refund of use tax under the use tax statute. View "Office Depot, Inc. v. Dir. of Revenue" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was the Director of Revenue’s final determination regarding Harry Fischer’s 2007 income tax liability. Fischer appealed the Director’s decision to the Administrative Hearing Commission (AHC), arguing that the Director erred in assessing additions and interest under Mo. Rev. Stat. 143.741.1 and 143.731.7 in calculating his tax liability for 2005, 2006, and 2007. The AHC affirmed the Director’s final determination. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the AHC, holding (1) the addition to Fischer’s 2007 tax liability was properly assessed; and (2) interest on Fischer’s 2007 tax liability was properly assessed. View "Fischer v. Dir. of Revenue" on Justia Law

The Director of Revenue assessed Miss Dianna’s School of Dance, Inc. $23,215 plus interest in unpaid taxes. Miss Dianna’s charged fees for dance classes that instruct participants on various styles of dance. The Commission determined that Miss Dianna’s was liable for $23,984 in unpaid tax, ruling that the dance fees were taxable under Mo. Rev. Stat. $144.020.1(2) as fees to a place of amusement, entertainment, or recreation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because amusement or recreational activities comprise more than a de minimus portion of Miss Dianna’s business activities, it is considered a place of amusement or recreation with fees taxable under section 144.020.1(2); and (2) therefore, the Commission’s decision is authored by law and supported by competent and substantial evidence upon the record. View "Miss Dianna's Sch. of Dance, Inc., v. Dir. of Revenue" on Justia Law

New Garden Restaurant, Inc. received “estimated audit assessments” from the Department of Revenue notifying New Garden that it owed $43,738 in unpaid sales tax. New Garden claimed it never received final assessment notices sent by the Department of Revenue. New Garden appealed the Director of Revenue’s tax assessments against it more than two weeks past the deadline. The Administrative Hearing Commission entered a summary decision dismissing New Garden’s appeal, ruling that it had no authority to hear New Garden’s appeal because the appeal was not filed within the time limitation for doing so. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) under the circumstances of this case, there was no due process violation; (2) equitable estoppel does not excuse New Garden’s late filing; and (3) the Commission did not err in its findings. View "New Garden Restaurant, Inc. v. Dir. of Revenue" on Justia Law

VisionStream, Inc., a Missouri corporation that designed and constructed trade show exhibits and displays, filed for a refund of Missouri sales taxes it remitted for its sale of trade show displays that it produced and shipped in Missouri for customer use outside of Missouri. The Director of Revenue denied the refund request. On appeal, the Administrative Hearing Commission (AHC) affirmed, determining that VisionStream was not entitled to a sales tax refund on purchases shipped out of state. In so doing, the AHC rejected VisionStream’s argument that title of the displays did not transfer to customers until delivery outside the state. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence supported the AHC’s finding that title transferred in Missouri. Therefore, the transactions were subject to Missouri sales tax. View "VisionStream, Inc. v. Dir. of Revenue" on Justia Law

Airport Tech Partners, LLP and Stentor Company, LLC (collectively, Airport Tech) brought a declaratory judgment action against the State, arguing that section 137.115.1 violates the uniformity clause of the Missouri Constitution. Airport Tech claimed it had taxpayer standing to challenge the statute because a lower assessment of airport property owned by Kansas City likely would result in a high tax burden for Airport Tech. The trial court concluded that Airport Tech lacked standing to seek a declaratory judgment because it presented only speculation that the statute relied on affected the level of the airport property’s assessment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court correctly concluded that Airport Tech simply sought to attack the assessment of another’s property as a way to lower its own taxes. View "Airport Tech Partners, LLP v. State" on Justia Law

Five Delta Alpha, LLC (FDA) purchased an aircraft and immediately leased it to JetSelect, LLC. After paying Missouri use tax under protest, FDA filed a use tax refund claim with the Director of Revenue, asserting that the purchase of the aircraft was eligible for exemption pursuant to Mo. Rev. Stat. 144.030.2(20) because the aircraft was leased to JetSelect as a common carrier providing air carrier service to the general public. The Director denied the claim. On appeal, the Administrative Hearing Commission (AHC) concluded that JetSelect was a common carrier but determined that FDA was not entitled to the refund because its lease was not a “sale” for purposes of the resale exemption. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that FDA showed clear and unequivocal proof that it qualified for the exemption because the lease to JetSelect constituted a sale for sales tax purposes. View "Five Delta Alpha, LLC v. Dir. of Revenue" on Justia Law

Custom Built, a personal training company, paid Powerhouse Gym of Joplin (Powerhouse), a fitness facility, rental fees covering the lease of office space and the opportunity to market and sell personal training services to Powerhouse members. The Department of Revenue (DOR) issued an assessment against Powerhouse for unpaid sales tax on the rental fees. Powerhouse challenged the assessment, and the Administrative Hearing Commission (AHC) determined that Powerhouse did not owe sales tax on the rental fees collected from Custom Built. DOR appealed, contending that the rental fees were subject to sales tax as a fee paid to a place of recreation under Mo. Rev. Stat. 144.020.1(2). The Supreme Court affirmed the AHC’s decision, holding that Powerhouse was not liable for sales tax on the monthly rental fees because Powerhouse did not render a taxable service to Custom Built. View "Tatson, LLC v. Dir. of Revenue" on Justia Law

In 2010, Alberici Constructors, Inc. sought a use tax refund for use taxes paid on out-of-state crane and welder rentals it used to install and construct manufacturing equipment at a new cement manufacturing plant in Missouri. Alberici also sought a use tax refund for the delivery of one of the cranes to the manufacturing job site. The Administrative Hearing Commission (AHC) denied Alberici’s claim for a refund of use taxes paid, finding, inter alia, that the cranes and welder were exempt from the imposition of use tax under Mo. Rev. Stat. 144.030.2(5). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Alberici owed use taxes on the rentals of the cranes and the welder because the the term “materials” in section 144.030.2(5) does not include machinery such as cranes and welders; and (2) the delivery service was a part of the crane rental, and therefore, the delivery charge was subject to the use tax. View "Alberici Constructors, Inc. v. Dir. of Revenue" on Justia Law