Justia Missouri Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

In 2001, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company ("SWBT") created Southwestern Bell Texas Holdings, Inc., ("Holdings") a new Delaware corporation, which created Southwestern Bell Telephone Texas LLC. SWBT then converted to a Texas limited partnership and named Southwestern Bell Telephone LP (“LP”). Holdings was the sole owner of LP. In 2007, the Director of Revenue conducted an audit and determined that Holdings was engaged in business in Missouri in 2003-2005 through its interest in LP. The Administrative Hearing Commission (AHC) determined that Holdings was not subject to Missouri franchise taxes for this period. At issue before the Supreme Court was whether a foreign corporation that has been engaged in business in Missouri and paying Missouri franchise taxes for decades can escape liability for franchise taxes, even though it continues to be engaged in the same business in the same locations using the same assets, by merely inserting a wholly owned limited partnership to own and operate those assets. The Supreme Court vacated the AHC’s determination, holding that Holdings was engaged in business in the state from 2003-2005 and, as a result, was subject to franchise taxes for those years. View "Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. Dir. of Revenue" on Justia Law

Beemer Construction Company and Seal-O-Matic Paving Company moved to set aside a tax sale of certain real property to Realty Acquisition, LLC, arguing that they had mechanic’s liens on the property and that the Director of Collection’s failure to give them prior personal notice of the tax sale violated their due process rights. The trial court set aside the tax sale as null and void. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a mechanic’s lien constitutes a substantial property interest, which is subject to due process protection; and (2) because Beemer and Seal-O-Matic, who had valid mechanic’s liens on the property, did not receive personal notice by mail of the tax sale, the trial court properly set aside the tax sale in question. View "In re Foreclosure Liens for Delinquent Taxes by Action in rem" on Justia Law

Respondent was a Missouri corporation that sold rock base and asphalt from its quarries and asphalt plants to paving companies to be used to construct and resurface roads and parking lots. Respondent petitioned the Director of Revenue for a sales tax refund under Mo. Rev. Stat. 144.054.2, claiming that the resurfacing process qualified for the exemption. The Director denied the refund. The Administrative Hearing Commission (AHC) reversed and entered a decision in favor of Respondent. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the AHC misapplied section 144.054.2 when it determined that the paving companies were engaged in “manufacturing,” “processing,” “compounding,” or “producing” roads and parking lots, and therefore, Respondent was not entitled to a refund of sales tax paid on the products it sold to the paving companies. View "Fred Weber, Inc. v. Dir. of Revenue" on Justia Law

Appellant in this case was a subcontractor that purchased steel beams and other steel components that were used to fulfill Appellant's contracts to construct steel frames for large-scale commercial buildings and structures. Appellant filed a petition with the Director of Revenue for sales and tax refunds under Mo. Rev. Stat. 144.054.2, which exempts “materials used or consumed in the manufacturing, processing, compounding, mining, or producing of any product” from sales tax. The Director concluding that Appellant did not meet the requirements for a tax exemption under section 144.054.2. The Administrative Hearing Commission affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Appellant was using steel beams, plates, angles, and other components to fulfill its construction contracts, an activity not exempt under the plain and ordinary language of section 144.054.2, it failed to meet the statutory criteria for a sales and use tax exemption. View "Ben Hur Steel Worx, LLC v. Dir. of Revenue" on Justia Law

When pursuing a suspect on two pending felony arrest warrants, Defendant, a deputy sheriff, made a forced entry into a residence and physically subdued and arrested the suspect. As a result of his actions, the deputy was convicted of burglary, property damage, and assault. The Supreme Court reversed all three convictions, holding (1) there was insufficient evidence to support Defendant’s conviction for first-degree burglary and second-degree property damage, and therefore, the trial court erred in failing to sustain Defendant’s motion for acquittal as to these charges; and (2) the instructions given to the jury on assault were plainly erroneous. Remanded. View "State v. Hunt" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of felony child abuse for inflicting cruel and inhuman punishment upon his fourteen-year-old son by confining him in a small bathroom and by restricting food. Defendant appealed, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support either conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant’s conviction for child abuse based on food restriction; and (2) there was sufficient evidence to support a finding that Defendant subjected his son to cruel and inhuman punishment by repeatedly placing him alone in the bathroom for days at a time. View "State v. Hansen" on Justia Law

When Wells Trucking, Inc.’s employee was involved in an automobile accident that resulted in the death of another motorist, Wells Trucking had a primary insurance policy with United Fire & Casualty Company and an excess insurance policy with Scottsdale Insurance Company. After the decedent’s family filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Wells Trucking, Wells Trucking and Scottsdale filed suit against United Fire for bad faith refusal to settle within its policy limits. The trial court granted summary judgment for United Fire, concluding (1) an excess insurer cannot recover from a primary insurer under a claim of bad faith refusal to settle, and (2) bad faith refusal to settle could not be proven because United Fire ultimately settled the claim for its policy limits and Wells Trucking did not suffer an excess judgment. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) an insurer’s ultimate settlement for its policy limits does not negate the insurer’s earlier bad faith refusal to settle, and an excess judgment is not essential to a bad faith refusal to settle action; and (2) United Fire was not entitled to judgment against either Wells Trucking or Scottsdale. View "Scottsdale Ins. Co. vs. Addison Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Appellant bought tobacco products from a Missouri wholesaler and sold the tobacco products to Missouri retailers. Appellant did not report the sale of the tobacco products on his tax returns. The Director of Revenue determined that Appellant was responsible for the first sale of the tobacco products within the state. The Administrative Hearing Commission (AHC) agreed with the Director’s decision, determining that, although Appellant did not sell the tobacco products at retail to consumers, Appellant was liable for the ten-percent tax imposed on the “first sale of tobacco products, other than cigarettes” within the state. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the AHC correctly determined that the Director’s assessment of tax, interest, penalties, and costs was proper. View "Lalani v. Dir. of Revenue" on Justia Law

Leon Taylor was convicted of first-degree murder and first-degree robbery, among other offenses, for shooting and killing a gas station attendant in front of the attendant’s eight-year-old stepdaughter. Taylor was sentenced to death. Taylor’s half-brother, Willie Owens, who participated in the robbery but not the shooting, pleaded guilty to a robbery charge. Although Taylor designated Owens as a witness to Taylor’s execution, Owens was informed he would not be permitted to witness the execution. Taylor and Owens filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel Respondent, the warden and director of the correctional center, to permit Owens to witness Taylor’s execution. The Supreme Court granted the writ, holding that Taylor and Owens had a clear, unequivocal right to have Owens witness Taylor’s execution pursuant to Mo. Rev. Stat. 546.740. View "State ex rel. Taylor v. Russell" on Justia Law