Case Title: Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra v. DOR

Citation: 2010 WI 33

Docket Number: 2008AP001684

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2010-05-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
2010 WI 33 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2008AP1684 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra, Inc., 
          Petitioner-Appellant-Cross-Respondent-
Petitioner, 
 
     v. 
Wisconsin Department of Revenue, 
          Respondent-Respondent-Cross-Appellant. 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS 
2009 WI App 69 
Reported at: 318 Wis. 2d 261, 767 N.W.2d 360 
(Ct. App. 2009-Published) 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
May 5,2010   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
December 2, 2009   
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
Circuit   
 
COUNTY: 
Dane   
 
JUDGE: 
Maryann Sumi   
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
CONCUR & DISSENT: 
ROGGENSACK, J., concurs in part/dissents in part 
(opinion filed). 
GABLEMAN, J., joins the concurrence/dissent. 
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For 
the 
petitioner-appellant-cross-respondent-petitioner 
there were briefs by Robert A. Schnur, Timothy G. Schally, Sarah 
L. Fowles, and Michael Best & Friedrich LLP, Madison, and oral 
argument by Robert A. Schnur. 
 
For the respondent-respondent-cross-appellant the cause was 
argued by F. Thomas Creeron III, assistant attorney general, 
with whom on the brief was J.B. Van Hollen, attorney general. 
 
 
 
 
2010 WI 33
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
 
No.  2008AP1684  
(L.C. No. 
2007CV134) 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra, Inc., 
 
          Petitioner-Appellant-Cross-
Respondent-Petitioner, 
 
     v. 
 
Wisconsin Department of Revenue, 
 
          Respondent-Respondent-Cross-
Appellant. 
 
 
 
FILED 
 
MAY 5, 2010 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals.  Affirmed.   
 
¶1 
SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, C.J.   This is a review of a 
published decision of the court of appeals reversing a judgment 
of the Circuit Court for Dane County, Maryann Sumi, Judge, and 
remanding the cause to the circuit court to enter an order 
affirming the decision of the Tax Appeals Commission.1 
                                                 
1 Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra, Inc. v. DOR, 2009 WI App 69, 
318 Wis. 2d 261, 767 N.W.2d 360. 
No. 
2008AP1684   
 
2 
 
¶2 
The issue before the court is whether the sales of 
admissions to concerts performed by the Milwaukee Symphony 
Orchestra are subject to Wis. Stat. § 77.52(2)(a)2. (1995-96)2 
imposing a five percent sales tax on gross receipts of the "the 
sale 
of 
admissions 
to 
amusement, . . . entertainment 
or 
recreational events or places . . . ."     
¶3 
The Wisconsin Tax Appeals Commission held that the 
sales of admissions to Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra concerts 
were subject to the sales tax under Wis. Stat. § 77.52(2)(a)2. 
because the concerts were primarily entertainment events.  It 
separately concluded that the ticket sales to the Milwaukee 
Symphony Orchestra concerts were taxable as "admissions to 
musical performances" under Wis. Admin. Code § Tax 11.65(1)(a).3    
¶4 
The circuit court concluded that the Commission had 
erred in basing its decision on taxation on a distinction 
between 
education 
and 
entertainment 
when 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 77.52(2)(a)2. does not use the word "education."  The circuit 
court declared the Commission's creation and application of an 
exception 
from 
taxation 
for 
educational 
activities 
an 
unreasonable interpretation of § 77.52(2)(a)2. and remanded the 
cause to the Commission.  The circuit court stated that the 
                                                 
2 All references to the Wisconsin statutes are to the 1995-
96 version unless otherwise indicated.  The relevant tax years 
for this case are 1992-96.  The controlling statutory language 
now codified in Wis. Stat. § 77.52(2)(a)2.a. (2007-08) has not 
changed. 
3 This section of the tax code has been in effect since 1978 
with no changes relevant to the issues in this case. 
No. 
2008AP1684   
 
3 
 
Commission would be free to conclude that the Milwaukee Symphony 
Orchestra's concerts are taxable entertainment events, but not 
by applying an educational test that has no basis in the 
statute.   
¶5 
The court of appeals reversed the judgment of the 
circuit court.  The court of appeals gave the Commission's 
interpretation and application of the statute due weight 
deference and held that the Commission's interpretation of the 
statute is reasonable and that no more reasonable interpretation 
was available.  The court of appeals therefore affirmed the 
Commission's holding that the ticket sales to the Milwaukee 
Symphony 
Orchestra 
concerts 
were 
sales 
of 
admissions 
to 
"entertainment events" under Wis. Stat. § 77.52(2)(a)2. and 
subject to sales tax. 
¶6 
We affirm the decision of the court of appeals.  We 
too give the Commission's interpretation and application of the 
statute due weight deference and conclude that the Commission 
reasonably interpreted and applied Wis. Stat. § 77.52(2)(a)2.  
We therefore conclude that the sales of admission to the 
Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra concerts were sales of admission to 
"entertainment events" under Wis. Stat. § 77.52(2)(a)2. and are 
subject to sales tax.   
¶7 
Because the Commission concluded that the statute 
provided a basis for its decision independent from Wis. Admin. 
Code § Tax 11.65, we need not address the parties' dispute 
regarding the rule in order to review the Commission's decision 
under the statute.  We agree with this approach taken by the 
No. 
2008AP1684   
 
4 
 
court of appeals.  Any review of § Tax 11.65 would not change 
the result of this case.    
I 
 
¶8 
The dispute here is over the interpretation and 
application of Wis. Stat. § 77.52(2)(a)2. to undisputed facts.  
The Commission made 137 Findings of Fact and the Milwaukee 
Symphony Orchestra does not take issue with them.  The Milwaukee 
Symphony Orchestra's position is that the facts do not lead to 
the Commission's conclusion that the concerts are entertainment 
events under the sales tax law.  
¶9 
In 1997, the Wisconsin Department of Revenue initiated 
a field audit of the Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra for the period 
from September 1, 1992 through August 31, 1996.  Unless 
otherwise noted, we describe and analyze the facts established 
for that time period. 
¶10 The Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra is a full-time, 
professional symphony orchestra.  During the relevant time 
period, the Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra employed approximately 
90 musicians.  The beginning salary of the musicians was 
approximately $50,000 per year, and the musicians were unionized 
as Milwaukee Musicians Association, Local 8, of the American 
Federation of Musicians.  Most of the musicians had advanced 
college or conservatory degrees in music, and for most, their 
income from the Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra was the principal 
source of income for their families.  In addition, the Milwaukee 
Symphony Orchestra employed 40 or more non-musicians in full-
time administrative and management staff positions.  The 
No. 
2008AP1684   
 
5 
 
Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra was managed by a board of directors 
consisting of from 40 to 60 members. 
¶11 The Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra has been incorporated 
as a not-for-profit corporation.  It is exempt from federal 
income tax under § 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code as an 
organization operated exclusively for educational purposes.  The 
Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra's Articles of Incorporation, as 
restated in 1988, state an educational purpose:  
The purposes for which the Corporation is organized 
are 
educational, to present classical and other 
orchestral music, performed with the highest degree of 
artistic excellence, to promote and develop public 
appreciation of and to educate the public in such 
music, and to engage in any other lawful activity 
within the purposes for which corporations may be 
organized under Chapter 181 of the Wisconsin statutes. 
¶12 During each year of the audit period, the Milwaukee 
Symphony Orchestra's total operating revenues consisted almost 
entirely of ticket sales to its concerts, and revenues were 
always less than the overall expenses for those concerts.  Even 
if the Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra sold every ticket to every 
concert, overall operating revenues would be substantially less 
than overall expenses; each concert would result in a financial 
loss.  These expected operating deficits were offset by 
charitable contributions and government grants.  In some years 
the Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra had an overall deficit even 
after contributions. 
¶13 The Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra presented 100 to 150 
concerts per year.  Most were presented in Milwaukee but some 
No. 
2008AP1684   
 
6 
 
were elsewhere in Wisconsin and outside the state.  This case 
involves only those concerts presented in Wisconsin for which 
the Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra sold tickets to the public.  
Ticket prices varied from one concert to another and changed 
each year.  The Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra set its ticket 
prices generally lower than those for commercial concerts to 
broaden the Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra's audiences.  The 
Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra offered discounts to full-time 
students and educators, children, senior citizens, and others. 
¶14 There were primarily three categories of concerts: (1) 
Classical concerts; (2) Pops concerts; and (3) Youth concerts. 
The Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra also performed some special 
concerts on dates such as Christmas, Fourth of July, and New 
Year's. 
¶15 The Classical concerts primarily included works from 
the traditional classical repertoire.  The Milwaukee Symphony 
Orchestra also regularly commissioned original works to perform 
at its concerts.  Works were selected for the Classical 
concerts, according to the Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra, by 
"balancing [the Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra]'s educational 
mission and primary purpose; the likely interest of its 
patrons . . . and budget considerations."   
¶16 Most Classical concerts were preceded by free previews 
or talks in which a conductor, musician, or other expert 
discussed the music to be performed.  The Milwaukee Symphony 
Orchestra also offered post-concert talks for approximately one 
quarter of the Classical concerts.  
No. 
2008AP1684   
 
7 
 
¶17 Persons attending the Classical concerts received the 
Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra's program book, Encore, which 
contained advertising as well as feature stories about the 
Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra; glossaries of music terms and 
discussions of particular types of music and instruments; 
profiles of guest artists; and program notes about the music to 
be performed, sometimes including explanations from the composer 
as to the content of the music and what the music was intended 
to convey. 
¶18 By the Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra's own estimation, 
attendance at discussions preceding Classics Series concerts 
averaged approximately 200, while average attendance for the 
concerts themselves was over 1,600.  At Pops concerts no pre- or 
post-concert discussions were offered, and concert attendance 
averaged over 1,800.   
¶19 Pops 
concerts 
featured 
"lighter 
music, 
mixing 
orchestral 
pieces 
with 
lighter, 
usually 
American 
music," 
typically performed in full symphony orchestra format.  The 
Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra used its Pops concerts as outreach 
to encourage new ticket purchases and conceded that some Pops 
concerts did not represent its primary mission.4   
¶20 The Youth concerts included concerts in three series, 
each aimed at a different age group including High School 
concerts, "Middle School" concerts (aimed at children in grades 
                                                 
4 Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra v. DOR, Docket No. 98-S-130, 
slip op. at 20-21 (WTAC Dec. 15, 2006) (Findings of Fact Nos. 
70, 74).  
No. 
2008AP1684   
 
8 
 
3 through 8, each targeting a pair of these grade levels), and 
"Kinderkonzerts," directed at children ages 3 to 8. 
¶21 The 
Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra used its Youth 
concerts partly to develop future classical audiences.  The 
Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra collected sales tax on its ticket 
sales for these Youth concerts prior to making its refund claim.  
The Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra did not take any resale 
exemption certificates or purchase orders from the schools, 
since individual students, rather than the schools, paid for the 
tickets. 
¶22 High School and Middle School concerts were normally 
performed in the Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra's regular concert 
halls with the full symphony orchestra rather than in schools.  
The concert programs included works from the traditional 
classical repertoire, connected to an overall theme appropriate 
for the targeted age group.  For example, in 1994-96 the 
Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra presented a series of High School 
concerts themed "American History Through Music," which focused 
on United States history through the development of music and 
the humanities. 
¶23 High School and Middle School concerts were designed 
to introduce students to symphonic music, and the Milwaukee 
Symphony Orchestra prepared teaching materials and program 
guides for teachers whose classes would be attending the 
concerts.  These materials included some explanations about the 
orchestra, background materials on the composers, suggestions of 
what to listen for, questions for thought and discussion, and 
No. 
2008AP1684   
 
9 
 
other explanatory materials.  These materials were available to 
teachers 
before 
the 
concerts. 
Any 
pre-concert 
teaching 
activities were done by school teachers, not by Milwaukee 
Symphony Orchestra staff.  Use of the materials was not a pre-
requisite to attending the concerts.     
¶24 The Kinderkonzerts, designed to introduce children to 
classical music, were generally presented at the Marcus Center 
for the Performing Arts.  Kinderkonzerts consisted mainly of 
works from the classical repertoire appropriate for young 
children, but many popular children's songs were also performed.  
Each Kinderkonzert was organized around a theme and conducted in 
an interactive talk and play format.  The Kinderkonzerts also 
featured many other pre-concert activities, such as a "Petting 
Zoo" (allowing children onstage to touch instruments), persons 
dressed as children's characters, clowns, dancers, and coloring 
contests. 
¶25 Families 
that 
subscribed 
to 
the 
Kinderkonzerts 
received materials with descriptions of the music, composers, 
and instruments, and suggested activities for parents and 
children.  
¶26 The Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra does not argue that 
any of these Youth concerts might be distinguished from the 
Classical concerts as primarily educational rather than as 
primarily 
entertainment. 
 
Rather, 
the 
Milwaukee 
Symphony 
Orchestra has chosen to argue before the Commission and the 
court that all of its concerts are primarily educational and not 
primarily entertainment.  The Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra's 
No. 
2008AP1684   
 
10 
 
brief stated, in relation to the Pops concerts, that "there is 
no practical method of separating these from the other concerts" 
because "many Pops offerings consist entirely or mainly of 
traditional classical works and most Pops tickets are sold in 
series."5  Because the Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra relies on the 
nature of the music itself as presenting primarily educational 
content, distinctions between the concert series are not 
supported.  The record is not adequate for the Commission or the 
court to distinguish the Youth concerts and treat the admission 
sales for Youth concerts as primarily educational and not 
subject to the sales tax.  
¶27 After the Department of Revenue initiated its field 
audit, the Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra filed amended sales tax 
returns 
for 
the 
audit 
period. 
 
The 
Milwaukee 
Symphony 
Orchestra's amended tax returns claimed a refund of $719,456.69 
for sales tax that it had previously paid, including tax on all 
admission sales.   
¶28 The 
Department 
acted 
on 
the 
Milwaukee 
Symphony 
Orchestra's 
refund 
claim 
together 
with 
its 
field 
audit 
assessment.  The Department granted a portion of the Milwaukee 
                                                 
5 Brief 
and 
Appendix 
of 
Petitioner-Appellant-Cross-
Respondent-Petitioner (Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra) at 46 & 
n.138. 
No. 
2008AP1684   
 
11 
 
Symphony Orchestra's refund claim in the amount of $585.36 in 
sales tax but denied the remainder.6   
¶29 In 1998, the Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra sought the 
Commission's 
review 
of 
the 
Department's 
decision. 
 
The 
Commission held the case in abeyance, awaiting the decision in 
Milwaukee Repertory Theater v. Wisconsin Department of Revenue 
(Milwaukee Rep), Docket No. 97-S-330, Wis. Tax Rptr. (CCH) ¶400-
515 (WTAC 2000).  The Commission conducted a four-day contested 
case hearing in the present case on May 4-7, 2004, and issued 
its Decision and Order on December 16, 2006.  
II 
¶30 We review the decision of the Commission, rather than 
the judgment of the circuit court or the decision of the court 
of appeals, although we benefit from the analysis of those 
courts.7     
                                                 
6 The Department of Revenue assessed the Milwaukee Symphony 
Orchestra an amount of $39,397.87 in tax and interest.  The 
Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra does not contest the calculation of 
the amount; it agreed that if the gross receipts from its ticket 
sales are taxable, the Department's assessment, plus applicable 
interest, is correct.  
7 DOR v. Menasha Corp., 2008 WI 88, ¶46, 311 Wis. 2d 579, 
754 N.W.2d 95; Racine Harley-Davidson, Inc. v. Wis. Div. of 
Hearings & Appeals, 2006 WI 86, ¶8 n.4, 292 Wis. 2d 549, 717 
N.W.2d 184.   
"An adverse decision of the tax appeals commission is 
subject to review in the manner provided in ch. 227," Wis. Stat. 
§ 73.015(2), before the circuit court for Dane County, Wis. 
Stat. § 77.59(6)(b). 
No. 
2008AP1684   
 
12 
 
¶31 We review an agency's findings of fact by applying a 
"substantial evidence" standard, affording significant deference 
to the agency's findings.  Substantial evidence does not mean a 
preponderance of evidence.  It means whether, after considering 
all the evidence of record, reasonable minds could arrive at the 
conclusion reached by the trier of fact.8  "[T]he weight and 
credibility of the evidence are for the agency, not the 
reviewing court, to determine."9  An agency's findings of fact 
may be set aside only when a reasonable trier of fact could not 
have reached them from all the evidence before it, including the 
available inferences from that evidence.10   
¶32 In 
contrast, 
an 
agency's 
"interpretation 
and 
application of a statute is a question of law to be determined 
by a court."11  A reviewing court may, however, give deference to 
an agency's interpretation of a statute.   
¶33 Granting 
deference 
on 
review 
of 
an 
agency's 
determination of law recognizes the comparative institutional 
qualifications and capabilities of the courts and the agency.12  
Granting deference to an agency's statutory interpretation does 
not abdicate the court's own authority and responsibility to 
                                                 
8 Hilton ex rel. Pages Homeowners' Ass'n v. DNR, 2006 WI 84, 
¶¶16, 25, 293 Wis. 2d 1, 717 N.W.2d 166 (quoted source omitted). 
9 Hilton, 293 Wis. 2d 1, ¶25. 
10 Hilton, 293 Wis. 2d 1, ¶¶16, 25. 
11 Racine Harley-Davidson, 292 Wis. 2d 549, ¶14. 
12 Id. 
No. 
2008AP1684   
 
13 
 
interpret statutes.  Even when granting deference to an agency's 
statutory interpretation, the court does not accept the agency's 
interpretation without a critical eye.  The court itself must 
interpret 
the 
statute 
to 
determine 
whether 
the 
agency's 
interpretation 
is 
reasonable; 
only 
reasonable 
agency 
interpretations are given any deference.13 
¶34 Our case law has established three levels of deference 
to be granted to agency interpretations, depending on the 
circumstances: "great weight," "due weight," or "no deference."14  
¶35 "Great weight" deference is warranted when (1) the 
agency is charged by the legislature with administering the 
statute in question; (2) the agency interpretation is of long 
standing; (3) the agency employed its specialized knowledge or 
expertise in interpreting the statute; and (4) the agency's 
interpretation will provide uniformity and consistency in the 
application of the statute.  When courts apply "great weight" 
deference, an agency's reasonable statutory interpretation will 
be 
sustained 
even 
if 
the 
court 
concludes 
that 
another 
interpretation is equally reasonable or even more reasonable.15     
¶36 Courts give lesser, "due weight" deference when the 
agency is charged by the legislature with enforcement of the 
statute and has experience in the area, but has not developed 
expertise that necessarily places the agency in a better 
                                                 
13 Id., ¶15. 
14 Id., ¶11. 
15 Id., ¶¶16-17. 
No. 
2008AP1684   
 
14 
 
position than the court to interpret the statute.  Courts 
applying "due weight" deference will sustain an agency's 
statutory interpretation if it is not contrary to the clear 
meaning of the statute and no more reasonable interpretation 
exists.16  Applying "due weight" deference, a reviewing court 
will not set aside the agency's interpretation in favor of 
another equally reasonable interpretation, but will replace it 
with a more reasonable interpretation if one exists.17 
¶37 Reviewing courts give no deference to an agency's 
statutory interpretation when any of the following conditions 
are met: (1) the issue presents a matter of first impression; 
(2) the agency has no experience or expertise relevant to the 
legal issue presented; or (3) the agency's position on the issue 
has been so inconsistent as to provide no real guidance.18  A 
court giving no deference to an agency's interpretation of a 
statute benefits from the agency's analysis but interprets the 
statute independent of the agency's interpretation and in effect 
adopts an interpretation that the court determines the most 
reasonable interpretation.19 
¶38 Here, 
we 
give 
"due 
weight" 
deference 
to 
the 
Commission's interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 77.52(2)(a)2., as 
did the court of appeals and the circuit court.  The Commission 
                                                 
16 Id., ¶18. 
17 Id., ¶¶18, 20. 
18 Id., ¶19. 
19 Id., ¶¶19, 20. 
No. 
2008AP1684   
 
15 
 
is charged with interpreting and administering the tax code and 
adjudicating taxpayer claims, Wis. Stat. § 73.01(4), and this is 
not the first case in which the Commission has utilized its 
expertise and experience to interpret Wis. Stat. § 77.52(2)(a)2.  
The Commission has interpreted the phrase "entertainment events 
and places" in three previous cases, which we shall discuss 
later, 
including 
one 
recent 
case 
with 
a 
fact 
situation 
substantially similar to the present case.  The Commission's 
interpretation therefore warrants some deference.20  "Great 
weight" deference would be inappropriate here, however, because 
the Commission's interpretation of "entertainment events and 
places" under Wis. Stat. § 77.52(2)(a)2. has evolved in the 
three cases over the last 20 years.21  
¶39 We turn to the text of Wis. Stat. § 77.52(2)(a)2. and 
the Commission's interpretation and application of the statute 
to the undisputed facts.   
III 
¶40 Wisconsin Stat. § 77.52(2)(a)2. imposes a sales tax on 
"the sale of admissions to amusement, athletic, entertainment or 
recreational events or places."  The question posed in the 
instant case is whether Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra concerts 
                                                 
20 Id., ¶18.  
21 At the court of appeals, the Department argued for "great 
weight" deference in the instant case, but in its briefs here 
argued for "at least due weight deference"; at oral argument the 
Department agreed that "due weight" deference was warranted. 
No. 
2008AP1684   
 
16 
 
were 
"entertainment 
events 
or 
places" 
under 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 77.52(2)(a)2.   
¶41 The applicable portions of Wis. Stat. § 77.52(2) are 
as follows (emphasis added): 
(2)  For the privilege of selling, performing or 
furnishing the services described under  par. (a) at 
retail in this state to consumers or users, a tax is 
imposed upon 
all persons selling, performing or 
furnishing the services at the rate of 5% of the gross 
receipts from the sale, performance or furnishing of 
the services.  
(a) The tax imposed herein applies to the following 
types of services: 
. . . . 
2.  The sale of admissions to amusement, athletic, 
entertainment or recreational events or places, the 
sale, rental or use of regular bingo cards, extra 
regular cards, special bingo cards and the sale of 
bingo supplies to players and the furnishing, for 
dues, fees or other considerations, the privilege of 
access to clubs or the privilege of having access to 
or the use of amusement, entertainment, athletic or 
recreational devices or facilities, including, in 
connection 
with 
the 
sale 
or 
use 
of 
time-share 
property, as defined in  s. 707.02 (32), the sale or 
furnishing of use of recreational facilities on a 
periodic basis or other recreational rights, including 
but 
not 
limited 
to 
membership 
rights, 
vacation 
services and club memberships.22 
                                                 
22 A separate provision provides tax exemptions that do not 
apply here. 
Wisconsin Stat. § 77.54(9) exempts: 
The gross receipts from sales of tickets or admissions 
to public and private elementary and secondary school 
activities, where the entire net proceeds therefrom 
are expended for educational, religious or charitable 
purposes. 
No. 
2008AP1684   
 
17 
 
¶42 The focus of our analysis is therefore on whether the 
Milwaukee 
Symphony 
Orchestra's 
concerts 
are 
"entertainment 
events" under the statute, as the Commission held them to be.  
The statute does not define the phrase "entertainment events or 
places."  
¶43 We 
review 
the 
Commission's 
interpretation 
and 
application of Wis. Stat. § 77.52(2)(a)2. under the due weight 
deference standard to determine whether interpreting the statute 
to apply to sales of tickets to Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra 
concerts is a reasonable interpretation and application of the 
statute 
or 
whether 
a 
more 
reasonable 
interpretation 
is 
available. 
¶44 We first examine the Commission's interpretation of 
the statute and then the Commission's application of its 
interpretation to the undisputed facts. 
¶45 The 
Commission 
has 
interpreted 
the 
phrase 
"entertainment event" in Wis. Stat. § 77.52(2)(a)2. to mean an 
event that is "primarily" entertaining.  More specifically, the 
Commission has determined that "primarily" means more than 50 
percent and that an event that is 50 percent or more 
entertainment is subject to sales tax under § 77.52(2)(a)2.     
                                                                                                                                                             
Wisconsin Stat. § 77.54(9a)(f) exempts: 
(9a) The gross receipts from sales to . . . 
(f) any corporation, community chest fund, foundation 
or association organized and operated exclusively for 
religious, 
charitable, 
scientific 
or 
educational 
purposes . . . (emphasis added). 
No. 
2008AP1684   
 
18 
 
¶46 The Commission has developed this interpretation of 
the 
phrase 
"entertainment 
events" 
under 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 77.52(2)(a)2. in three prior cases.  
¶47 First, in 1986, the Commission decided in Historic 
Sites Foundation v. Wisconsin Department of Revenue, Docket No. 
S-10066, Wis. Tax Rptr. (CCH) ¶202-662, at 12,793 (WTAC Jan. 21, 
1986), that sales of admissions to the Circus World Museum in 
Baraboo were not taxable under Wis. Stat. § 77.52(2)(a)2. 
because "the [Circus World Museum] was not a place of amusement, 
athletic events[,] entertainment or recreation . . . ."23     
¶48 The Historic Sites case established two key principles 
that underlie the subsequent interpretation and application of 
Wis. Stat. § 77.52(2)(a)2.   
¶49 One, the Commission adopted a "primary objective" test 
(later stated as the "primary purpose" test) for determining 
whether the event or place was "entertainment" for sales tax 
purposes.  Recognizing that "many of the activities of the 
[Circus World Museum] are amusing and entertaining as well as 
educational," the Commission rejected in Historic Sites the 
Department's argument that any entertaining aspect would make 
                                                 
23 Historic Sites Found. v. DOR, Docket No. S-10066, Wis. 
Tax Rptr. (CCH) ¶202-662, at 12,795 (WTAC Jan. 21, 1986).   
We note that since the Commission decided the Historic 
Sites case, admissions to the Circus World Museum have been made 
exempt from sales and use tax under ch. 77, subch. III of the 
Wisconsin Statutes.  See Wis. Stat. § 77.54(10) (as amended by 
85 Wis. Act 29, § 1490m); see also Wis. Admin Code § Tax 
11.65(2)(b). 
No. 
2008AP1684   
 
19 
 
admissions taxable.24  Instead, the Commission held that "the 
'primary 
objective' 
interpretation 
of 
sec. 77.52(2)(a)2.[ ] 
should be utilized in considering the taxability of [the 
Museum's] admission fees."25    
¶50 Two, the Commission formulated its analysis "in terms 
of the degree to which 'amusement' or 'entertainment,' as 
opposed to 'education,' is an objective of a place charging 
admission for entrance."26  This analysis implied that if a place 
or event has "education" as its "primary objective," it cannot 
have "entertainment" as its primary objective.   
¶51 Thus in Historic Sites the Commission made the meaning 
of "education," a word not appearing in the text of Wis. Stat. 
§ 77.52(2)(a)2., a potentially dispositive factor in applying 
the statute.  The Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra argues that their 
concerts are "educational" and therefore not "entertainment."    
¶52 The 
second 
Commission 
case 
applying 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 77.52(2)(a)2. involved the Experimental Aircraft Association.27  
In Experimental Aircraft Association v. Wisconsin Department of 
Revenue, Docket Nos. S-8921, S-8922, S-8923, Wis. Tax Rptr. 
                                                 
24 Historic Sites, Wis. Tax Rptr. (CCH) ¶202-662, at 12,793. 
25 Id. 
26 Id. 
27 Experimental Aircraft Ass'n v. DOR, Docket Nos. S-8921, 
S-8922, S-8923, Wis. Tax Rptr. (CCH) ¶202-802, at 12,823 (WTAC 
Jan. 21, 1986), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other 
grounds, DOR v. EAA Aviation Found., 143 Wis. 2d 681, 422 
N.W.2d 458 (Ct. App. 1988). 
No. 
2008AP1684   
 
20 
 
(CCH) ¶202-802, at 12,823 (WTAC Jan. 21, 1986), the Commission 
made numerous findings of fact and then simply concluded as a 
matter of law (without a memorandum decision) that the admission 
fees to the public area at the week-long Oshkosh Fly-In aviation 
event were not subject to sales tax.  The Commission continued 
the analysis articulated in Historic Sites, finding as a fact 
that "[t]he primary purpose of the fly-in is to educate people 
about . . . aviation . . . rather than to provide a pleasurable 
or agreeable diversion."28  On judicial review, the circuit court 
upheld the Commission's implicit "primary purpose" analysis, 
holding it "proper and necessary for the Commission to determine 
what 
level 
or 
degree 
of 
amusement, 
entertainment, 
or 
recreational value" the event has, and agreeing that "the 
primary purpose of the fly-in is to educate."29   
¶53 The Experimental Aircraft Association case applied and 
extended the analysis of the "primary purpose" (or "primary 
objective") and the distinction between educational events and 
events that are primarily aimed at entertainment, amusement, or 
recreation. 
¶54 The third Commission case, the most recent and the 
most directly relevant here, was the Commission's 2000 decision 
in Milwaukee Repertory Theater, Inc. v. Wisconsin Department of 
Revenue (Milwaukee Rep), Docket No. 97-S-330, Wis. Tax Rptr. 
                                                 
28 Id. at 12,829. 
29 DOR v. EAA Aviation Found., Wis. Tax Rptr. (CCH) ¶202-802 
(Dane Co. Cir. Ct., Nos. 86CV882, 86CV891, Oct. 22, 1986) 
(emphasis in original). 
No. 
2008AP1684   
 
21 
 
(CCH) ¶400-515, at 31,979 (WTAC Dec. 15, 2000).  The Commission 
determined that sales of admissions to the Milwaukee Repertory 
Theater's performances were sales of admissions to "amusement or 
entertainment events" subject to sales tax under Wis. Stat. 
§ 77.52(2)(a)2.  The Commission reaffirmed Milwaukee Rep in the 
present case and concluded that the Milwaukee Rep decision was 
controlling here.  
¶55 The 
Commission's 
decision 
in 
Milwaukee 
Rep 
distinguished the theater performances from the events at the 
Circus World Museum in Historic Sites and the fly-in event in 
Experimental Aircraft Association.   
¶56 The Commission rejected the argument that if the 
primary objective of the Milwaukee Repertory Theater was 
educational, sales of admissions to the performances were not 
taxable.  Referring to the language of the statute, the 
Commission cited dictionary definitions of "entertainment," of 
"amuse" (as a synonym of "entertain"), and of "recreation," 
concluding 
that 
"[e]ven 
if 
education 
was 
[the 
Milwaukee 
Repertory Theater's] primary objective as producer of the shows, 
the overriding thrust of its advertising and promotion of the 
shows, as well as the obvious objective of the public who 
responded 
by 
buying 
the 
tickets, 
was 
'entertainment,' 
'amusement,' and/or 'recreation' as those terms are commonly 
understood and defined."30    
                                                 
30 Milwaukee Repertory Theater, Inc. v. DOR (Milwaukee Rep), 
Docket No. 97-S-330, Wis. Tax Rptr. (CCH) ¶400-515, at 31,982 
(WTAC Dec. 15, 2000). 
No. 
2008AP1684   
 
22 
 
¶57 The Commission observed that "in spite of its worthy 
educational 
mission, 
[Milwaukee 
Repertory 
Theater] 
is 
a 
sophisticated non-profit mercantile enterprise . . . engaged in 
extensive 
commercial 
advertising 
and 
promotion 
of 
its 
performances."31 
¶58 The Commission also noted in Milwaukee Rep that such 
advertising 
was 
"understandable 
because . . . [Milwaukee 
Repertory 
Theater] 
must 
compete 
for 
the 
discretionary 
entertainment dollar in the public marketplace."32  
¶59 In short, in Milwaukee Rep the Commission examined 
advertising, promotion, marketing, the mission of the theater 
company, and other specific facts about the performances which, 
taken 
together, 
established 
"the 
nature 
of 
the 
disputed 
performances."  From these facts the Commission concluded that 
the theater performances were entertainment events and that the 
sales of admission to the theater performances were subject to 
sales tax under Wis. Stat. § 77.52(2)(a)2.  
¶60 Both in this court and before the Commission, the 
Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra has argued that the analysis in 
Milwaukee Rep is inconsistent with the analysis in Historic 
Sites.  The Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra reasons that Historic 
                                                 
31 The scope and content of the Theater's advertising were a 
central part of the Commission's analysis.  The Commission found 
that 
Milwaukee 
Repertory 
Theater's 
"own 
advertising 
and 
marketing describe and even tout the . . . performances as 
entertaining."  Milwaukee Rep, Wis. Tax Rptr. (CCH) ¶400-515, at 
31,980-81. 
32 Milwaukee Rep, Wis. Tax Rptr. (CCH) ¶400-515, at 31,982. 
No. 
2008AP1684   
 
23 
 
Sites focused on "the objective of a place charging admission," 
characterizing that as "the only realistic way to formulate the 
issue."33  Milwaukee Rep, on the other hand, according to the 
Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra, gave greater weight to "the 
obvious objective of the public" in response to Milwaukee 
Repertory Theater's advertising and promotion, and went so far 
as to state that in the circumstances of that case, "[t]he 
educational mission and stated objective of the producer, 
[Milwaukee Repertory Theater], are irrelevant."34   
¶61 Responding 
to 
the 
Milwaukee 
Symphony 
Orchestra's 
arguments, the Commission's decision in the present case 
attempted to reach, as the court of appeals explained, "a 
reasonable and coherent reading of the three prior decisions."35  
The Commission explained that in synthesizing the prior cases, 
it is clear that all relevant factors, including the sponsor's 
objectives, the characteristics of the event, and the audience's 
motivations, are to be considered. 
¶62 In the present case, the Commission articulated a 
sensible 
approach 
to 
the 
difficult 
question 
of 
how 
an 
adjudicative body should elucidate the "primary purpose" of an 
event as potentially multi-faceted as a symphony orchestra 
performance. 
The 
Commission 
explained 
that 
"[t]he 
better 
approach is to look not only at the motivation or purpose of the 
                                                 
33 Historic Sites, Wis. Tax Rptr. (CCH) ¶202-662, at 12,796. 
34 Milwaukee Rep, Wis. Tax Rptr. (CCH) ¶400-515, at 31,982. 
35 Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra, 318 Wis. 2d 261, ¶21. 
No. 
2008AP1684   
 
24 
 
sponsor . . . but also at the nature of the event itself and the 
audience's motivation in attending, and its reaction to, the 
event.  Of course, these three considerations will invariably 
overlap, and one piece of evidence, such as advertising, may 
provide insight into all three considerations."36 
¶63 The Commission's stated approach is realistic and 
reasonable.  It would be less reasonable to require a narrowly 
focused test, scrutinizing only the sponsoring organization's 
stated objectives, or to make any one factor controlling across 
the whole range of events and places in which Wis. Stat. 
§ 77.52(2)(a)2. applies.  We agree with the Commission that "a 
sponsor's statements that its events have an educational 
purpose, as in Milwaukee Rep, might be undermined by other 
evidence . . . ."37  The broader interpretive approach the 
Commission has articulated will avoid exclusive reliance on the 
easily manipulated test of a sponsoring organization's stated 
purposes. 
¶64 The Commission's interpretation and application of the 
statute in the instant case is reasonable and consistent with 
our own analysis of the statute in three key regards.   
¶65 First, it makes sense to maintain the "primary 
purpose" analysis.  Even if the factors for determining the 
"primary purpose" have varied with the context of each of the 
                                                 
36 Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra v. DOR, Docket No. 98-S-130, 
slip op. at 55-56 (WTAC Dec. 15, 2006).   
37 Id. at 56. 
No. 
2008AP1684   
 
25 
 
Commission's cases, the basic principle of a "primary purpose" 
or "primary objective" has been consistent since Historic Sites 
was decided in 1986.       
¶66 This long-standing interpretation provides meaningful 
guidance to taxpayers and is a sound interpretation of the 
statute.  Indeed, the Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra itself urges 
us to maintain the "primary purpose" analysis, since if any 
aspect 
of 
entertainment 
were 
sufficient 
to 
make 
concert 
admissions taxable, then the Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra's 
concerts admissions would certainly be taxable.     
¶67 Alternative interpretations are no more reasonable.  
Specifically, the standard that the Department had advocated 
(and that the Commission rejected) in the Historic Sites case 
would have made any degree of entertainment sufficient to 
require sales tax.  Such an interpretation would greatly expand 
the scope of events taxable as "entertainment."   
¶68 Second, although a primary purpose may be hard to 
quantify, it has long been accepted that if the primary purpose 
of an event or place is 50 percent or more "amusement, athletic, 
entertainment or recreational," then admission to the event or 
place is taxable under this provision of the statute.      
¶69 Notably, 
the 
statute 
previously 
made 
taxable 
"admissions to places of amusement, athletic entertainment or 
recreational events or places," Wis. Stat. § 77.52(2)(a)2. 
(1975) (emphasis added).  The legislature amended this language 
by 1977 Wis. Act 142, which adopted the language that remains in 
place to the present, taxing "admissions to amusement, athletic, 
No. 
2008AP1684   
 
26 
 
entertainment or recreational events or places."  By eliminating 
the stand-alone phrase "places of amusement" and adding a comma 
between "athletic" and "entertainment," the legislature made 
clear that admissions to "entertainment . . . events or places" 
constitute a distinct, taxable category.  This change broadened 
the reach of the statute considerably by clearly going beyond 
"athletic entertainment," and indicates a legislative intent to 
tax 
a 
more 
diverse 
set 
of 
events. 
 
The 
Commission's 
interpretation 
that 
admission 
to 
the 
Milwaukee 
Symphony 
Orchestra's concerts are taxable as entertainment is consistent 
with the statutory change.   
¶70 We therefore maintain the interpretation that a 
taxpayer must prove that the event is 50 percent or more 
something other than "amusement, athletic, entertainment or 
recreational" to avoid sales tax.  The briefs and argument in 
the present case are focused on whether the primary purpose of 
the concerts is "educational," rather than "entertainment." 
¶71 An "educational" purpose is not the only possible 
alternative to "entertainment."  An event may, for example, have 
a charitable or religious purpose as its primary purpose.  We 
need not, however, articulate an exhaustive list of all possible 
antonyms to "entertainment" or all adjectives that describe 
other purposes outside the statutory language in order to decide 
this case. 
¶72 Third, 
the 
Commission's 
multi-factor 
approach 
to 
identifying the "primary purpose" is reasonable, and we do not 
identify any more reasonable way to interpret the statute.  The 
No. 
2008AP1684   
 
27 
 
question of how to discern the "primary purpose" of a place or 
event in administrative or judicial review is an elusive one, 
especially for events as diverse as the statute must address and 
as multi-faceted as the orchestra concerts at issue here.  The 
proper approach to such an open-ended question should not be 
narrow or overly formalistic. 
¶73 It is both reasonable and unsurprising to observe that 
different factors have had different weight in the Commission's 
evaluation of undertakings as different from one another as the 
Circus World Museum, the Oshkosh fly-in, and theater and 
orchestra performances.     
¶74 In Historic Sites, the Commission emphasized the 
Circus 
World 
Museum's 
commitment 
to 
presenting 
historic 
information 
and 
historically 
accurate 
demonstrations 
and 
reenactments.38  This focus led the Commission to the conclusion 
that the Museum's primary purpose was educational, rather than 
entertainment.   
¶75 In the Experimental Aircraft Association case, the 
extensive findings of fact emphasized, among with many other 
factors, the lack of public advertising, the range of both 
historic 
and 
new 
aviation 
technologies 
on 
display, 
the 
differences between the public area and the other areas of the 
grounds, and the different types of fees paid.39   
                                                 
38 See Historic Sites, Wis. Tax Rptr. (CCH) ¶202-662, at 
12,796. 
39 See Experimental Aircraft Ass'n, Wis. Tax Rptr. (CCH) 
¶202-672, at 12,824-12,825, 12,827-12,828. 
No. 
2008AP1684   
 
28 
 
¶76 In Milwaukee Rep, the Commission viewed promotional 
and advertising materials and the apparent motivations of the 
audience members as highly probative that the primary purpose of 
the plays was entertainment, amusement, or recreation, even 
though 
the 
sponsoring 
organization 
avowed 
an 
educational 
mission.40 
¶77 The 
Commission's 
decision 
in 
the 
instant 
case 
clarified its decision in Milwaukee Rep.  Although language in 
the Milwaukee Rep case suggested that "the educational mission 
and stated objective of the producer, [Milwaukee Repertory 
Theater], are irrelevant,"41 this "irrelevant" language is 
properly read to mean that the Milwaukee Repertory Theater's 
stated mission and objective were not controlling over the 
specific 
facts 
of 
that 
case, 
particularly 
the 
Theater's 
marketing practices, which the Commission found "acknowledge[d] 
the entertaining nature of the performances."42   
¶78 Milwaukee Rep does not say, and does not mean, that 
the mission and objective of the sponsoring organization are 
never relevant.  Rather, the Commission's decision in Milwaukee 
Rep stands for the proposition that in spite of the sponsoring 
organization's institutional mission or espoused objective, 
other specific facts may demonstrate that the primary purpose of 
                                                 
40 See Milwaukee Rep, Wis. Tax Rptr. (CCH) ¶400-515, at 
31,982. 
41 Id. 
42 Id. 
No. 
2008AP1684   
 
29 
 
an 
event 
for 
which 
admission 
is 
charged 
is, 
in 
fact, 
entertainment, amusement, or recreation.  In such cases, the 
mission or objective of the sponsoring organization may become 
"irrelevant" to the ultimate determination under the statute. 
¶79 Milwaukee Rep did not materially depart from the prior 
Commission decisions.  The Commission's decision in the instant 
case clarified the Milwaukee Rep decision and explicitly 
distinguished the Historic Sites and EAA cases.  We do not read 
the Commission's approach in Milwaukee Rep to be inconsistent 
with the prior decisions that addressed very different factual 
situations.     
¶80 In sum, we are persuaded that the interpretation of 
the statute adopted by the Commission in the instant case is 
reasonable and that no more reasonable interpretation is 
presented.  We therefore uphold the Commission's statutory 
interpretation.   
¶81 Whether sales of admissions to the Milwaukee Symphony 
Orchestra concerts are subject to sales tax under Wis. Stat. 
§ 77.52(2)(a)2. depends on the "primary purpose" of the event to 
which admission is charged.  The determination of primary 
purpose is a holistic one, which looks to the motivation, 
mission, or purpose of the sponsoring organization, as well as 
any evidence of the motivation and reaction of those paying 
admission and ultimately the nature of the place or event 
itself.  No formulaic inquiry is possible.  The inquiry is akin 
to what may be described in other areas of law as assessing the 
"totality of the circumstances." 
No. 
2008AP1684   
 
30 
 
¶82 We now consider the Commission's application of its 
interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 77.52(2)(a)2. to the undisputed 
facts of the instant case.  
¶83 The 
Commission 
considered 
the 
extensive 
evidence 
presented and concluded that the concert performances were 
primarily entertainment.  This conclusion is a reasonable one 
based on the record.  The court of appeals summarized well the 
record and the Commission's conclusion: 
The 
commission 
recognized 
that 
learning 
and 
an 
aesthetic experience was a component of attending the 
concert for many, that the music was artistically 
excellent, 
and 
that 
[the 
Milwaukee 
Symphony 
Orchestra's] current mission statement and certain 
activities were directed at educating the public on 
music so as to develop greater appreciation of it.  
However, there was also much evidence that [the 
Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra] and the attendees viewed 
the concerts as a form of entertainment and the 
commission was reasonably persuaded that this was the 
primary 
characteristic 
of 
the 
event——from 
the 
audiences' 
standpoint, 
from 
the 
marketing 
and 
advertising of [the Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra], and 
from the nature of the concerts themselves. 
. . . . 
The commission also considered the evidence of the 
optional pre-concert and post-concert lectures for 
some concerts and the written materials offered to 
concertgoers regarding the music performed at some 
concerts.  It concluded that these ways of providing 
information about the music did not transform the 
concerts into primarily educational events. We are 
satisfied 
that 
these 
conclusions 
are 
reasonable 
because they are based on the evidence and focus on 
the concerts themselves, which are the events for 
which the tickets are sold.  We are also satisfied 
that it is not more reasonable to conclude that an 
expert's analysis of the music, taken together with 
the educational materials regarding the music made 
No. 
2008AP1684   
 
31 
 
available to the concertgoers, make the concerts 
themselves primarily educational events.43   
¶84 The Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra does not contest the 
Commission's 
factual 
determinations, 
which 
are 
more 
than 
adequately supported by evidence in the record.  Considering 
those facts, and the record before us, we are persuaded that the 
Commission reasonably applied its interpretation of the statute 
to determine that the primary purpose of the Milwaukee Symphony 
Orchestra concerts was entertainment.  
¶85 The Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra's principal argument 
is that the primary purpose of its concerts was educational or 
charitable, 
rather 
than 
for 
entertainment, 
amusement, 
or 
recreation.  
The 
Commission considered several dictionary 
definitions of "education."44   
                                                 
43 Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra, 318 Wis. 2d 261, ¶¶25-26.  
44 See Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra v. DOR, Docket No. 98-S-
130, slip op. at 57-58 (WTAC Dec. 15, 2006).   
The Commission cited The American Heritage Dictionary, 
Second College Editions (1991), for these definitions:  
1. The act or process of educating or being educated.   
2. The knowledge or skill obtained or developed by a 
learning process.   
The Commission also cited Webster's Third New International 
Dictionary, unabridged, (1981), as follows: 
A. The act or process of educating or being educated. 
B. The act or process of providing with knowledge, 
skill, 
competence . . . . 
Desirable 
qualities 
of 
behavior or character or of being so provided esp. by 
a formal course of study, instruction or training. 
No. 
2008AP1684   
 
32 
 
¶86 The Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra contends that the 
evidence shows that the primary purpose of their concerts was 
educational within these definitions and that a consensus exists 
in the law and in society that the Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra 
and the other fine arts organizations are educational or 
charitable institutions.45   
¶87 It bears emphasis that the statutory text itself does 
not use the word "education."  The controlling question is 
whether the Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra's concerts had a 
primary 
purpose 
of 
"entertainment," 
"amusement," 
or 
                                                                                                                                                             
2a. A process or course of learning, instruction, or 
training 
that 
educates 
or 
is 
intended 
to 
educate . . . esp. a formal course of instruction or 
training offered by an institution. 
45 Based on its overall arguments, the Milwaukee Symphony 
Orchestra implicitly advances a much broader definition of the 
word "education," more akin to the IRS's recognition of 
contributions to classical music orchestras as tax-exempt as 
serving "educational purposes."  The Internal Revenue Service, 
Solicitor's Memorandum, 1919-1 C.B. 147, 1919 WL 49784 (1919), 
explained: 
 
"Educational" 
is 
not 
used 
in 
its 
meaning 
of 
instruction by school, college, or university, which 
is 
a 
narrower 
or 
more 
limited 
meaning 
of 
the 
word . . . but in its broader signification as the act 
of developing and cultivating the various physical, 
intellectual 
and 
moral 
faculties 
toward 
the 
improvement of the body, mind, and the heart. 
. . . . 
That the instruction in music given by a musical 
association is conveyed in such a manner as to be 
pleasurable does not negative the fact that such 
instruction is educational. 
No. 
2008AP1684   
 
33 
 
"recreation."   Exposition of the "educational" aspects of the 
concerts is relevant only as a means of potentially proving that 
the "primary purpose" of the concerts was not "entertainment," 
"amusement," or "recreation." 
¶88 The Commission highlighted the Milwaukee Symphony 
Orchestra's Articles of Incorporation from both 1976 (the 
Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra's "primary purpose[s]" are "to 
organize and maintain and conduct a symphony orchestra and to 
present performances by the said orchestra . . . to further the 
cultivation and appreciation of the art of Music. . . . ") and 
1988 ("The purposes for which the Corporation is organized are 
educational, to present classical and other orchestral music, 
performed with the highest degree of artistic excellence, to 
promote and develop public appreciation of and to educate the 
public in such music . . . .").46  However, the Commission also 
found that "[o]nly a few of the many documents expressing [the 
Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra's] purpose or mission use any form 
of the word educate or similar words, and, except for the [1988 
Articles of Incorporation], the term was always used in the 
context of educating people in the art of music."47 
¶89 The Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra's financial analysis 
of the years in question showed that annualized education and 
                                                 
46 Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra v. DOR, Docket No. 98-S-130, 
slip op. at 3-4 (WTAC Dec. 15, 2006) (Findings of Fact Nos. 6, 
7).  
47 Id. at 4 (Finding of Fact No. 8). 
No. 
2008AP1684   
 
34 
 
outreach expenses ranged from $147,000 to $310,000 per year, or 
1.24 percent to 2.5 percent as a percentage of total revenue.48  
¶90 The 
Commission separately analyzed each type of 
concert offered and then concluded that none of them was 
primarily an educational event.  None was offered by an 
educational 
institution; 
there 
was 
no 
formal 
course 
of 
instruction or structured instructional curriculum and no direct 
or concrete correlation between attending the concert and 
learning; attendance was not part of a process of training; and 
no skill or knowledge such as that developed by taking music 
lessons was necessarily imparted by attending concerts.   
¶91 The Commission concluded that even if some educational 
values flowed from the Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra's concerts, 
those values would be insufficient to classify the concerts as 
primarily educational. "It is not clear what [the Milwaukee 
Symphony Orchestra] claims was taught at its concerts or learned 
by attending its concerts.  To the extent [the Milwaukee 
Symphony Orchestra] is arguing that by attending one of its 
concerts, one becomes more educated in the sense of becoming 
more familiar with the music itself, that must be rejected 
because 
that 
same 
statement 
could 
be 
made 
about 
any 
event . . . ."49 
¶92 Over the fiscal years at issue, the Commission found 
that the Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra's combined expenses for 
                                                 
48 Id. at 12 (Finding of Fact No. 39). 
49 Id. at 58. 
No. 
2008AP1684   
 
35 
 
"sales and promotion," "media activities," and "marketing" 
ranged from $1.2 to $1.6 million per year.50 
¶93 The Commission made extensive findings about the 
Milwaukee 
Symphony 
Orchestra's 
marketing 
activities 
and 
advertisements.51 
 
The 
content 
of 
the 
Milwaukee 
Symphony 
Orchestra's advertising and promotional communications amply 
demonstrates that even if the Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra did 
not view its concerts primarily as "entertainment," it at least 
wanted potential ticket-buyers to view them as such.   
¶94 Some of the advertising and promotional materials 
submitted as exhibits to the Commission also contain brief 
summaries of background and information about the music or 
musicians.  However, the Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra has not 
identified any advertisement or public promotional material that 
describes the concerts themselves as "educational," promises 
"learning," or offers other descriptions that suggest an overall 
educational purpose. 
¶95 Advertisements and promotional materials for Classical 
concerts included phrases such as "exhilarating music, soothing 
sounds, 
thrilling 
energy"; 
"an 
evening 
of 
delightful 
entertainment"; and "a wonderful time at the symphony!"52 
¶96 Similarly, the Commission found that advertisements 
and promotional materials for various Pops concerts, often 
                                                 
50 Id. at 26 (Finding of Fact No. 95). 
51 Id. at 26-35 (Findings of Fact Nos. 95-125). 
52 Id. at 30-31 (Findings of Fact Nos. 109, 113, 114). 
No. 
2008AP1684   
 
36 
 
highlighting a special program or performer, promised "a 
fabulous time," "bubbly hits," "light classical favorites," "a 
fun-filled sing-along of popular songs . . . led by the world's 
foremost yodeler"; "topnotch entertainment"; "Entertainment with 
a capital E!" and many other similar entertainment-themed 
phrases.53   
¶97 The 
Milwaukee 
Symphony 
Orchestra 
marketed 
the 
Kinderkonzerts with materials describing "entertaining your 
family,"  "Musical Fun for Your Whole Family!" as well as 
advertising the themed activities with phrases such as "the 
spectacle of the circus" and "enjoy the holiday extravaganza."54     
¶98 The Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra contends that the 
Commission's findings and reasoning relied too heavily on 
advertising and that by "cherry picking" entertainment-related 
phrases disproportionately from the advertising, the Commission 
mischaracterized the nature of the concerts as a whole and the 
"Classics" series concerts in particular.  We disagree with the 
Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra.   
¶99 As was true in Milwaukee Rep, the "overriding thrust" 
of the Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra's advertising, as well as 
its sales promotional materials, press releases, and other 
public materials, was to promote its concerts as entertainment 
events.  The Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra identifies only a tiny 
fraction of its promotional materials that, in addition to 
                                                 
53 Id. at 31-33 (Findings of Fact Nos. 115-123). 
54 Id. at 34-35 (Findings of Fact Nos. 124-125). 
No. 
2008AP1684   
 
37 
 
promoting the concerts as entertainment, can also be construed 
to promote an educational purpose. 
¶100 The Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra nevertheless argues 
that the advertising provides only "indirect" evidence of the 
actual characteristics of the Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra's 
concerts.  The Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra urges the court to 
weigh other evidence more heavily and rely on two sources in 
particular: (1) testimony given before the Commission by their 
expert witness, Dr. Greenberg; and (2) a survey of audience 
motivations conducted by the American Symphony Orchestra League 
in 2000-01. 
¶101 The Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra's expert witness, Dr. 
Greenberg, 
indeed 
testified 
that 
he 
disagreed 
with 
the 
Department's position that the Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra 
concerts are primarily events of amusement or entertainment.  He 
opined that "there is a level of entertainment going on, 
amusement, but by far the primary impulse, the primary event 
that's going on in these concerts is an educational and 
informative impulse."  Dr. Greenberg described the experience of 
listening to one piece (Beethoven's Symphony No. 3 in E-flat 
major, "The "Eroica") as "profoundly instructive and profoundly 
educating . . . in the most basic and important sorts of ways."   
¶102 We are not persuaded by this expert testimony to set 
aside the Commission's decision.  It is the Commission's role to 
determine the persuasiveness and weight to accord to the 
evidence and testimony before it.  The Commission concluded that 
the expert's testimony itself was indeed primarily educational 
No. 
2008AP1684   
 
38 
 
but that there was no evidence that audience members would, by 
attending the concerts, become privy to any of the information 
the expert discussed.  The pre- and post-concert lectures were 
not part of the concerts themselves and the publication Encore 
contained a small amount of information about the pieces 
themselves and was optional reading.   
¶103 The Commission also had before it other evidence and 
testimony.  For instance, the Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra's own 
principal violinist testified that the concerts were "not 
instructional."  Another witness, who has worked with numerous 
symphony orchestras and other performing arts organizations, 
opined that while there were both educational and entertainment 
values to symphony concerts, the entertainment factor was at 
least 80 percent. 
¶104 With regard to the educational materials for the Youth 
concerts, the record does not indicate what percentage of the 
schools, 
parents, 
or 
audience 
members 
used 
the 
optional 
materials.  The Commission determined that even if all of them 
did, 
the 
Milwaukee 
Symphony 
Orchestra 
materials 
did 
not 
transform the concerts themselves into primarily educational 
events.  The teaching and instruction, if any, was not conducted 
by the Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra.  The Commission concluded 
that to some degree the children's concerts were a marketing 
technique to develop future audiences, since the Milwaukee 
Symphony Orchestra thought that children must be exposed to 
No. 
2008AP1684   
 
39 
 
classical music before age 14 to establish an interest in 
attending classical concerts as adults.55 
                                                 
55 The concurrence/dissent concludes that the Youth concerts 
are not primarily entertainment within the meaning of Wis. Stat. 
§ 77.52(2)(a)2.  It does so by unfairly challenging two or three 
of the Commission's 137 findings of fact and by considering only 
those parts of the record that support its conclusions, rather 
than by considering the entire record.  See concurrence/dissent 
at ¶¶157-158. 
For example, the Commission found that the audiences were 
never asked about what they learned.  The concurrence/dissent 
attacks this finding on the basis of nine response letters and 
returned questionnaires in the record (Exhibit 39) submitted 
following various events from 1993 to 1996.  Because this 
sampling is small and apparently self-selected, its evidentiary 
value is not obvious.  Moreover, the questionnaires did not ask 
the teachers what they learned or what their students learned.  
The teachers' responses are brief, variously praising the 
programs and preparatory materials, criticizing them as "not age 
appropriate," emphasizing the positive response of students, or 
suggesting that a more multi-cultural program would be "more 
curricularly appropriate."  The teachers' responses (and a few 
student comments) also describe the concerts as entertaining and 
fun.  A few older students emphasized the educational and 
"informative" aspects of the concerts, while one fourth grade 
class provided comments including "very pretty" and a comment 
from a student who "enjoyed sitting there looking doing nothing 
but listening."  In short, from the limited evidence presented, 
no one characterization of the programs or materials is 
compelled.   
Moreover, the concurrence/dissent does not reexamine all of 
the findings of fact relating to the Youth concerts that the 
Commission considered and fails to consider the Commission's 
definition of "education" as it relates to the Milwaukee 
Symphony. 
No. 
2008AP1684   
 
40 
 
¶105 The Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra does not argue that 
any of the Youth concerts are distinguishable from the Classical 
concerts, which also have available educational materials.  
Rather, the Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra has instead chosen to 
present to the Commission and to this court a record and an 
argument that all of the Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra's concerts 
are not primarily entertainment.  The Milwaukee Symphony 
Orchestra's brief indicates that examining each concert or each 
concert series to determine if it is primarily entertainment or 
primarily something else is impractical.  The Milwaukee Symphony 
Orchestra's brief states that because "many Pops offerings 
                                                                                                                                                             
The 
concurrence/dissent 
(¶137) 
looks 
only 
at 
the 
perspective of the Milwaukee Symphony and the perspective of the 
educators who took their classes to the concerts to determine 
whether the Youth concerts are primarily  entertainment.  Yet, 
according to the Commission (whose statutory interpretation is 
accorded due weight deference), the determination of whether the 
concerts are primarily entertainment is not a narrowly focused 
test with any one controlling factor.  The determination depends 
on numerous factors, including the motivation of the sponsor, 
the nature of the event, the audience's motivation in attending, 
and the audience's reaction to the event.   
The concurrence/dissent also observes, correctly, that 
educational materials were made available to teachers and 
families, although only on request.  The materials were not made 
available to the students.  Using these materials was optional, 
and their use was left to teachers and families, not to symphony 
staff.  Thus, if the materials were essential to render the 
concerts educational rather than entertainment, the record does 
not indicate the extent of the use of the materials.  Moreover, 
with the exception of cassette tapes, these materials were 
provided free of charge.  Thus the very materials and activities 
which the concurrence/dissent finds most probative of the 
concerts' educational nature are those for which no sales tax 
could be charged because no money was paid. 
No. 
2008AP1684   
 
41 
 
consist entirely or mainly of traditional classical works and 
most Pops tickets are sold in series," therefore "there is no 
practical method of separating these from the other concerts."56  
We agree with the Commission that on the basis of this record 
the three types of Youth concerts should be treated the same as 
the Classical concerts and should be treated as primarily 
entertaining events subject to the sales tax.   
¶106 The Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra also relies on a 
survey of the audience motivations of symphony-goers, conducted 
by the American Symphony Orchestra League.  One survey question 
asked respondents to review 13 statements and to rate on a scale 
of 1 (low) to 5 (high) how each described their usual concert 
experience.  Seventy-eight percent of current subscribers gave a 
"5" or "4" ranking to the statement: "The classical orchestra 
experience is an educational and continual learning experience."   
¶107 The survey was conducted after the audit period, did 
not include the Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra, and did not ask 
the question posed under the statute at issue.  The survey 
questions 
did 
not 
compare 
the 
relative 
educational 
and 
entertainment values of symphony concerts, and in fact asked no 
questions that used any variant of the word "entertainment," 
which is the focus of our statutory interpretation here. 
                                                 
56 Brief 
and 
Appendix 
of 
Petitioner-Appellant-Cross-
Respondent-Petitioner (Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra) at 45-46. 
No. 
2008AP1684   
 
42 
 
¶108 The 
Milwaukee 
Symphony 
Orchestra's 
own 
surveys 
referred to its concerts as entertainment and asked no questions 
about their educational value. 
¶109 Finally, the Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra argues that 
imposing sales tax on their concert tickets conflicts with other 
tax laws that give favorable treatment to the Milwaukee Symphony 
Orchestra, along with other fine arts and performing arts 
groups, as educational or charitable organizations.  For 
example, the Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra argues that it is 
exempt from federal income tax under I.R.C. § 501(c)(3) and has 
never reported the revenues from ticket sales to the IRS as 
"unrelated business taxable income" ("UBTI") within the meaning 
of I.R.C. §§ 511-513;57 that it qualifies for special rates from 
the U.S. Postal Service as an "educational" organization; that 
it has been treated as exempt from property taxes under Wis. 
Stat. § 70.11(4) because it is a benevolent organization; that 
it purchases products without paying sales tax under Wis. Stat. 
§ 77.54(9a)(f); 
and 
that 
it 
is 
not 
required 
to 
pay 
income/franchise taxes on ticket sales as "unrelated business 
taxable income" ("UBTI") revenue under Wis. Stat. § 71.26(1)(a).   
¶110 We do not disturb these determinations of preferential 
status and non-taxation under other rules and statutes.  They 
are largely unrelated to the question before us.  We analyze the 
                                                 
57 Findings of Fact Nos. 43-46.  In a 1993 audit, the IRS 
accepted that Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra's ticket sales were 
"substantially related" to the organization's tax-exempt purpose 
and would not be treated as "UBTI" revenue.  Finding of Fact No. 
48. 
No. 
2008AP1684   
 
43 
 
sales-taxability of admissions to Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra 
concerts as entertainment events or places, using the primary 
purpose test under Wis. Stat. § 77.52(2)(a)2.  We do not analyze 
the institutional status or taxability of the Milwaukee Symphony 
Orchestra under other statutes.   
 
¶111 In sum, none of the Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra's 
arguments is sufficient to overcome the due weight deference we 
give to the Commission's application of its interpretation of 
Wis. Stat. § 77.52(2)(a)2. to the undisputed facts to reach the 
conclusion that the Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra's sales of 
concert admissions are subject to sales tax under the totality 
of the circumstances presented.   
 
¶112 We agree with the Commission that the relevant facts 
in Milwaukee Rep and in the instant case are "substantially 
indistinguishable" 
and 
that 
the 
Commission's 
decision 
in 
Milwaukee Rep effectively controls the outcome in the present 
case.  The Commission's analysis in the present case of "the 
motivation or purpose of the sponsor . . . the nature of the 
event itself and the audience's motivation in attending, and its 
reaction to, the event" is reasonable. 
* * * * 
 
¶113 In conclusion, we affirm the decision of the court of 
appeals.  We too give the Commission's interpretation and 
application of the statute due weight deference and conclude 
that the Commission reasonably interpreted and applied Wis. 
Stat. § 77.52(2)(a)2.  We see no more reasonable interpretation 
and application of Wis. Stat. § 77.52(2)(a)2. to replace the 
No. 
2008AP1684   
 
44 
 
Commission's soundly reasoned decision.  We therefore conclude 
that the sales of admission to the Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra 
concerts were sales of admission to "entertainment events" under 
Wis. Stat. § 77.52(2)(a)2. and are subject to sales tax. 
 
By the Court.—The decision of the court of appeals is 
affirmed. 
 
No.  2008AP1684.pdr 
 
1 
 
¶114 PATIENCE DRAKE ROGGENSACK, J. (concurring/dissenting).   
I concur with the conclusion reached by the majority opinion 
that tickets to the Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra's Classical and 
Pops Concerts are taxable under Wis. Stat. § 77.52(2)(a)2.  
However, because I conclude that the Youth Concerts1 are not 
primarily entertainment within the meaning of § 77.52(2)(a)2., I 
also conclude that the Youth Concerts are not taxable events 
thereunder.   Accordingly, I dissent from that portion of the 
majority opinion that decides that the sale of tickets to Youth 
Concerts are subject to sales tax under § 77.52(2)(a)2. 
I.  BACKGROUND 
¶115 The Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra (Milwaukee Symphony) 
performs three types of concerts:  Classical Concerts, Pops 
Concerts and Youth Concerts.2  Here, I am concerned only with the 
Youth Concerts.  Milwaukee Symphony's Youth Concerts "consisted 
of three different series of concerts directed at children of 
                                                 
1 The majority concludes that it cannot distinguish the 
Youth Concerts from the Classical and Pops Concerts because the 
Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra did not argue that the Youth 
Concerts are distinguishable and because it "relie[d] on the 
nature of the music itself as presenting primarily educational 
content."  Majority op., ¶26.  While the Milwaukee Symphony 
Orchestra may have presented its case to this court as the 
majority states, we are not bound by a party's concession of law 
or arguments.  Lloyd Frank Logging v. Healy, 2007 WI App 249, 
¶15 n.5, 306 Wis. 2d 385, 742 N.W.2d 337 (concluding an 
appellate court is not bound by a party's concession of law, 
particularly 
where 
the 
concession 
involves 
an 
erroneous 
interpretation of a statute).  Furthermore, the Tax Appeals 
Commission analyzed the Youth Concerts separately from the 
Classical and Pops Concerts in its decision. 
2 Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra v. DOR, Docket No. 98-S-130, 
slip op. at 16 (WTAC Dec. 15, 2006) (Finding of Fact No. 55) 
[hereinafter Commission Decision]. 
No.  2008AP1684.pdr 
 
2 
 
different grade levels, namely, (a) High School concerts, (b) 
Youth ('Middle School') concerts, and (c) Kinderkonzerts."3  All 
of the Youth Concerts were presented in the same Milwaukee 
concert halls used by Milwaukee Symphony for its Classical 
Concerts, namely the Milwaukee Performing Arts Center (now, the 
Marcus Center) and the Pabst Theater.4  Milwaukee Symphony gave a 
50 percent discount on tickets to children ages 6 through 17 and 
a 10 percent discount to educators.5  All of the High School and 
Middle School concerts were performed on weekdays during school 
hours.   
¶116 Some of the facts relating to the Youth Concerts are 
set out in the majority opinion.6  However, there are additional 
undisputed facts of record that are relevant to the issue of 
whether Milwaukee Symphony Youth Concerts are subject to tax 
under Wis. Stat. § 77.52(2)(a)2.  Those additional facts will be 
presented below. 
II.  DISCUSSION 
A.  Standard of Review 
¶117 This case requires us to interpret and apply Wis. 
Stat. § 77.52(2)(a)2.  Statutory interpretation and application 
are 
questions 
of 
law 
that 
we 
review 
independently, 
but 
benefitting from the interpretations that have preceded ours.  
                                                 
3 Id. at 21 (Finding of Fact No. 76).   
4 Id. at 21, 24-25 (Findings of Fact Nos. 77, 86, 92).   
5 Id. at 17 (Finding of Fact No. 61). 
6 Majority op., ¶¶20–25. 
No.  2008AP1684.pdr 
 
3 
 
Richards v. Badger Mut. Ins. Co., 2008 WI 52, ¶14, 309 Wis. 2d 
541, 749 N.W.2d 581.  "Whether a statute is ambiguous is also a 
question of law" for our independent review.  Awve v. Physicians 
Ins. Co. of Wis., Inc., 181 Wis. 2d 815, 822, 512 N.W.2d 216 
(Ct. App. 1994).   
¶118 When the statutory interpretation at issue is that of 
an administrative agency, here the Tax Appeals Commission 
(Commission), we review the decision of the agency, not the 
decisions of the circuit court or the court of appeals.  DOR v. 
Menasha Corp., 2008 WI 88, ¶46, 311 Wis. 2d 579, 754 N.W.2d 95.  
In our review of an administrative agency's interpretation of a 
statute, we have applied three levels of common law deference: 
(1) no deference, often referred to as de novo review; 
(2) due weight deference, where we affirm an agency's 
interpretation if it is reasonable and we conclude 
that another interpretation is not more reasonable; 
and (3) great weight deference, where we affirm an 
agency's interpretation if it is reasonable, even when 
we conclude that another interpretation is more 
reasonable.  
Racine Harley-Davidson, Inc. v. State, 2006 WI 86, ¶104, 292 
Wis. 2d 549, 717 N.W.2d 184 (Roggensack, J., concurring) (citing 
UFE Inc. v. LIRC, 201 Wis. 2d 274, 285-87, 548 N.W.2d 57 
(1996)). 
¶119 The majority opinion grants due weight deference to 
the Commission's statutory interpretation,7 a decision with which 
I agree.  Due weight deference may be granted when the 
legislature has charged the agency with administering the 
statute and the agency has had at least some experience in doing 
                                                 
7 Majority op., ¶38. 
No.  2008AP1684.pdr 
 
4 
 
so.  Id., ¶105.  The Commission is charged with administering 
Wis. Stat. § 77.52(2)(a)2. and has done so on three previous 
occasions.  See Milwaukee Repertory Theater, Inc. v. DOR, Wis. 
Tax Rptr. (CCH) ¶400–515 (WTAC Dec. 15, 2000); Historic Sites 
Found., Inc. v. DOR, Wis. Tax Rptr. (CCH) ¶202–662 (WTAC 
Jan. 21, 1986); Experimental Aircraft Ass'n v. DOR, Wis. Tax 
Rptr. (CCH) ¶202–672 (WTAC Jan. 21, 1986).  In applying due 
weight deference, we will affirm the Commission's interpretation 
of § 77.52(2)(a)2. unless we conclude another interpretation is 
more reasonable.  Racine Harley-Davidson, 292 Wis. 2d 549, ¶105 
(Roggensack, J., concurring). 
¶120 In deciding whether another interpretation is more 
reasonable than the interpretation employed by the agency, we 
compare 
the 
agency 
interpretation 
with 
alternate 
interpretations.  Id.  This comparison requires that we construe 
the statute ourselves.  Id.  "In so doing, we employ judicial 
expertise in statutory construction, and we embrace a major 
responsibility of the judicial branch of government, deciding 
what statutes mean."  Id. 
B.  Interpretation and Application of  
Wis. Stat. § 77.52(2)(a)2. 
¶121 Whether the sales of tickets to Youth Concerts are 
taxable 
is 
driven 
by 
the 
interpretation 
of 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 77.52(2)(a)2.  Section 77.52(2)(a)2. states in relevant part: 
(2) For the privilege of selling, performing or 
furnishing the services described under par. (a) at 
retail in this state to consumers or users, a tax is 
imposed upon 
all persons selling, performing or 
furnishing the services at the rate of 5% of the gross 
No.  2008AP1684.pdr 
 
5 
 
receipts from the sale, performance or furnishing of 
the services. 
(a) The 
tax imposed herein applies to the 
following types of services: 
. . .  
2. 
The 
sale 
of 
admissions 
to 
amusement, 
athletic, entertainment or recreational events or 
places . . . . 
¶122 The sale of tickets to all types of events are not 
taxable under Wis. Stat. § 77.52(2)(a)2.  Rather, only those 
ticket 
sales 
to 
"amusement, 
athletic, 
entertainment 
or 
recreational events" are taxable.  § 77.52(2)(a)2.  Therefore, 
for example, ticket sales to religious, educational or political 
events are not taxable.   
¶123 The 
Commission concluded that the concerts were 
"primarily entertainment" events, which it defined as more than 
50 percent entertainment.  It then concluded that since the 
concerts were primarily entertainment events, all concert ticket 
sales were taxable under Wis. Stat. § 77.52(2)(a)2.8  
¶124 In 
order 
to 
determine 
whether 
there 
is 
an 
interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 77.52(2)(a)2. that is more 
reasonable than that chosen by the Commission, I must determine 
the meaning of § 77.52(2)(a)2.  Racine Harley-Davidson, 292 
Wis. 2d 549, ¶105 (Roggensack, J., concurring).  In order to do 
so, I begin with the statutory words chosen by the legislature.  
State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane County, 2004 WI 
58, ¶45, 271 Wis. 2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 110.    
                                                 
8 Commission Decision at 46.  
No.  2008AP1684.pdr 
 
6 
 
¶125 In its interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 77.52(2)(a)2., 
the Commission considered the types of events for which ticket 
sales are taxable, and it concluded that the concerts are 
entertainment events.  Therefore, I begin by examining whether 
the meaning of "entertainment" is ambiguous or plain on its 
face, as employed in § 77.52(2)(a)2.  This is a question of law.  
Awve, 181 Wis. 2d at 822.   
¶126 A statute is ambiguous when reasonably well-informed 
people could differ as to its meaning.  Bruno v. Milwaukee 
County, 2003 WI 28, ¶19, 260 Wis. 2d 633, 660 N.W.2d 656.  The 
term "entertainment" is not defined in the statute, either as to 
its meaning or quantitatively.  That is, the legislature has not 
said what the term "entertainment" means.  The legislature also 
has not said whether 100 percent of the attributes of an event 
are required to constitute "entertainment" before an event is 
taxable as entertainment or whether some lesser quantity of 
entertainment attributes is sufficient.9   
¶127 In determining what the legislature meant, words are 
given their common ordinary meaning, unless they are technical 
or specially defined words.  Id., ¶8.  A dictionary is often 
helpful in determining the ordinary meaning of commonly used 
words.  County of Dane v. LIRC, 2009 WI 9, ¶23, 315 Wis. 2d 293, 
759 N.W.2d 571.  
                                                 
9 The Commissioner defined "entertainment" on a quantitative 
basis when it concluded that the concerts were more than 50 
percent entertainment and therefore "primarily entertainment" 
resulting in taxable ticket sales.  Commission Decision at 45.  
No.  2008AP1684.pdr 
 
7 
 
¶128 An event may have attributes of differing kinds of 
taxable events or it may contain attributes of both taxable and 
nontaxable events, as did the events examined in Historic Sites 
and Experimental Aircraft.10  For example, a professional tennis 
match is an athletic event and also an entertainment event.  
Under my professional tennis match hypothetical, the sales of 
tickets to the tennis match would be taxable under Wis. Stat. 
§ 77.52(2)(a)2. because both attributes of the event fall within 
statutory categories of taxable events.   
¶129 However, it is just as likely that an event, such as 
the Youth Concerts, is entertaining and educational.  In that 
circumstance, one attribute of the event falls within a taxable 
event category and the other attribute does not.  Webster's 
Dictionary defines entertainment as "the act of diverting, 
amusing, or causing someone's time to pass agreeably" and 
educate as "fostering to varying degrees the growth or expansion 
of knowledge."  Webster's Third New International Dictionary, 
757, 723 (1961).   
¶130 The Commission's answer to this quandary of events 
with taxable and nontaxable attributes is to tax admissions to 
an event when it characterizes the event as "primarily" falling 
within 
one 
of 
the 
categories 
listed 
in 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 77.52(2)(a)2. 
 
In 
the 
case 
before 
us, 
the 
Commission 
                                                 
10 Experimental Aircraft Ass'n v. DOR, Wis. Tax Rptr. (CCH) 
¶202–672 
(WTAC 
Jan. 21, 1986), compared entertainment and 
education, which is the same context that the parties have 
chosen as the most relevant taxable and nontaxable attributes of 
Milwaukee Symphony's Youth Concerts.   
No.  2008AP1684.pdr 
 
8 
 
characterizes the Youth Concerts as entertainment, which the 
Commission asserts occurs when more than 50 percent of the event 
is entertainment.11  While greater than 50 percent may equate to 
"primarily," the word "primarily" does not appear in Wis. Stat. 
§ 77.52(2)(a)2.  However, because the legislature must have been 
aware that events could be characterized in more than one way, 
the Commission's interpretation is reasonable.  
¶131 One could also interpret Wis. Stat. § 77.52(2)(a)2. as 
providing that nontaxable attributes of an event, if they are 
more than merely incidental,12 cause the event to fall outside of 
the taxable categories listed in § 77.52(2)(a)2., so long as the 
primary purpose of the organization sponsoring the event is 
                                                 
11 The Commission asserts that Milwaukee Symphony agrees 
that "primarily entertainment" is the test.  Commission Decision 
at 45.  However, Milwaukee Symphony's brief in chief refers to 
Historic Sites Foundation, Inc. v. DOR, Wis. Tax Rptr. (CCH) 
¶202–662 (WTAC Jan. 21, 1986), when it cites the "primarily 
entertainment" test.  Milwaukee Symphony brief in chief at 2 
n.4.  "Primarily entertainment" was not the test the Commission 
employed in Historic Sites.  Rather, the test in Historic Sites 
was the "primary objective" test, where the Commission focused 
on the primary objective of the Historic Sites Foundation in 
operating and maintaining the Circus World Museum.  Historic 
Sites, Wis. Tax Rptr. (CCH) ¶202–662, at 12,796.  That there 
were performances such as Elephant Playtime in River, Unique 
Circus Instrument Concerts, Happy's Clown Capers where attendees 
were entertained, id. at 12,794, did not alter the Commission's 
focus on the primary objective of the Historic Sites Foundation.  
Furthermore, a full review of Milwaukee Symphony's brief shows 
that while it may accept the words, "primarily entertainment" as 
setting out the applicable test, Milwaukee Symphony argues that 
the test is applied from Milwaukee Symphony's perspective, just 
as the "primary objective" test in Historic Sites was applied.  
That is, Milwaukee Symphony's primary objective in putting on 
the concerts should control whether ticket sales are taxable. 
12 See 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 77.51(5) 
(2007-08) 
(defining 
"incidental"). 
No.  2008AP1684.pdr 
 
9 
 
consistent with the nontaxable attributes of the event.  This 
second interpretation is reasonable because § 77.52(2)(a)2. is 
not an over-arching tax on admissions to all public events, and 
the primary purpose of the sponsoring entity has been employed 
by the Commission in past applications of § 77.52(2)(a)2.13  
Accordingly, I conclude that this second interpretation is 
reasonable 
as 
well. 
 
When 
there 
are 
two 
reasonable 
interpretations of a statute, it is ambiguous.  See Kalal, 271 
Wis. 2d 633, ¶47.   
¶132 Because 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 77.52(2)(a)2. 
is 
a 
taxing 
statute, the taxpayer is entitled to the benefit of any 
ambiguity in the statute.  City of Racine v. DOR, 115 Wis. 2d 
510, 512, 340 N.W.2d 741 (Ct. App. 1983).  However, when an 
administrative agency is interpreting a statute that it was 
charged by the legislature with administrating and the agency 
has had at least some experience in doing so, its interpretation 
prevails unless there is a more reasonable interpretation.  UFE, 
201 Wis. 2d at 285-87.  The Commission has been designated as 
the final arbiter, subject to judicial review, of the Department 
of Revenue's redetermination decisions, such as is now before 
this court based on the meaning of § 77.52(2)(a)2.  Wis. Stat. 
                                                 
13 See Historic Sites, Wis. Tax Rptr. (CCH) § 202-662, at 
12,796; Experimental Aircraft, Wis. Tax Rptr. (CCH) § 202-672, 
at 12,829 (analyzing the "primary purpose" of the Experimental 
Aircraft Association's hosting the fly-in (the event under 
consideration) as the test to determine whether admission 
tickets were taxable).  This test, as the "primary objective" 
test of Historic Sites, focused on the motivation of the entity 
that sponsored the event. 
No.  2008AP1684.pdr 
 
10 
 
§ 73.01(4) (2007-08); see Gilbert v. DOR, 2001 WI App 153, ¶9, 
246 Wis. 2d 734, 633 N.W.2d 218.   
¶133 There is a potential tension between the maxim of 
statutory interpretation that provides that the taxpayer is 
entitled to the benefit of ambiguities in taxing statutes and 
the maxim that when an agency is charged with administering a 
statute its reasonable interpretation should prevail unless 
another interpretation is more reasonable.  Because, as I 
explain below in regard to the Youth Concerts, under either 
interpretation those concerts are not taxable events, I am not 
required to resolve that potential tension. 
¶134 First, 
I 
agree 
with 
part 
of 
the 
Commission's 
conclusion that ticket sales to an event that has attributes of 
both taxable and nontaxable events may be taxed.  I so conclude 
because the legislature could not have been unaware that some 
events would have at least incidental attributes of events that 
it chose not to tax.   
¶135 Accordingly, the question presented herein by my 
application of the two reasonable interpretations of Wis. Stat. 
§ 77.52(2)(a)2. identified above becomes:  What is the level of 
nontaxable attributes in the Youth Concerts and from whose 
perspective are these mixed-attribute events evaluated?   
¶136 Stated otherwise, because the Youth Concerts will 
cause a child's knowledge to expand as the child is presented 
with a new musical genre or the exposure to orchestral 
instruments with which he is not familiar, thereby educating the 
child, and during the concerts the child's time will pass 
No.  2008AP1684.pdr 
 
11 
 
agreeably, thereby entertaining the child, I must determine how 
the Youth Concerts' taxable and nontaxable attributes are to be 
evaluated.  See Webster's Third New International Dictionary, 
723, 757 (1961) (defining educate and entertainment).  In so 
determining, I examine the Youth Concerts' attributes first from 
the perspective of the Milwaukee Symphony, the entity that 
presented the concerts, and then from the perspective of the 
educators who took their classes to the concerts during the 
school day, based in part on the way in which the Youth Concerts 
were marketed. 
1.  Milwaukee Symphony's perspective 
¶137 Milwaukee Symphony was incorporated for educational 
purposes.14  Milwaukee Symphony's Articles of Incorporation, as 
restated in 1988, set out its purposes as follows:  
The 
purposes 
for 
which 
the 
Corporation 
is 
organized are educational, to present classical and 
other orchestral music, performed with the highest 
degree of artistic excellence, to promote and develop 
public appreciation of and to educate the public in 
such music, and to engage in any other lawful activity 
within the purposes for which corporations may be 
organized 
under 
Chapter 
181 
of 
the 
Wisconsin 
Statutes.15 
Milwaukee Symphony maintains an "Education Office" and employs a 
"Director of Education."   
¶138 Milwaukee Symphony also approached the Youth Concerts 
in a way to facilitate educational opportunities for the 
children.  For example, in advance of the concerts, Milwaukee 
                                                 
14 Commission Decision at 4 (Finding of Fact No. 7). 
15 Id. (emphasis added).   
No.  2008AP1684.pdr 
 
12 
 
Symphony offered teachers whose classes would be attending 
concerts three different types of materials that teachers could 
use to prepare their students.  First, Milwaukee Symphony 
offered teaching instruction materials that included "deeper 
discussions about the themes of the concerts, the music and the 
composers, and suggestions for class discussion, as well as 
inter-disciplinary 
publications 
relating 
to 
the 
music."16  
Second, 
Milwaukee 
Symphony 
offered 
docent 
classroom 
presentations, in which a trained docent visited the teacher's 
classroom to prepare the students for the upcoming concert.17  
Third, for a small fee, cassette tapes of the music were 
available.18  
¶139 Finally, after the High School and Middle School 
concerts, Milwaukee Symphony distributed questionnaires to the 
teachers to complete.19  The questionnaires asked which of the 
instructional materials provided were "used to prepare students 
for the concert;" to what extent Milwaukee Symphony met its 
objectives in presenting the concerts;20 whether the materials 
                                                 
16 Id. at 22 (Finding of Fact No. 81).   
17 The docents are individuals from the Milwaukee Symphony 
Orchestra League trained in presenting information about the 
Youth Concerts.   
18 The cassette tapes were the only materials that required 
the school to pay a fee.  The instruction materials and docent 
presentations were free of charge. 
19 R. 5, Ex. 39 (Milwaukee Symphony questionnaires). 
20 The five objectives, which were listed in the pre-concert 
materials, were:  (1) "To recognize that music can suggest the 
sounds of nature, the city, and people who live in a certain 
place and time"; (2) "To understand how music can express a 
No.  2008AP1684.pdr 
 
13 
 
were appropriate for use by students, teachers and for lesson 
plans; and whether the teacher created lesson plans as an 
outgrowth of the materials and concert.  Each of these questions 
demonstrates 
Milwaukee 
Symphony's 
desire 
to 
gauge 
the 
educational value of its concerts.  Milwaukee Symphony requested 
that the questionnaires be returned to its "Education Office," 
care of "Sue Medford, MSO Education Concert Manager." 
2.  Perspective of the teachers 
¶140 The teachers whose classes were to attend a concert 
were to request the offered materials.  The order form for 
requesting such materials was on the same form the teachers used 
to order the concert tickets.21  Requesting any of these 
materials was as simple as checking a box on that form and 
indicating to whom the materials were to be sent.  The order 
forms were returned to Milwaukee Symphony's "Education Concert 
Manager."22   
¶141 The students were taken to the Youth Concerts during 
the school day, by their teachers, who had the materials sent by 
Milwaukee Symphony that described educational features of the 
concerts.  Responses to questionnaires indicated that teachers 
coordinated the concerts and pre-concert materials with their 
                                                                                                                                                             
story"; (3) "To understand that music can express the cultural 
heritage of a specific country"; (4) "To examine how music 
creates a sense of motion"; and (5) "To discover how the concept 
of sound is used in language arts."  R. 5, Ex. 39 (Milwaukee 
Symphony questionnaires). 
21 R. 5, Ex. YYYYYY (1996 Middle School Concerts Teacher's 
Guide). 
22 Id. (emphasis added). 
No.  2008AP1684.pdr 
 
14 
 
classroom lesson plans to develop the student's knowledge and 
understanding of the music that would be presented.23  The 
teachers' educational focus also is evidenced by their taking 
time from the usual class routine to bring students to the 
concerts. 
¶142 As an example of the Youth Concerts, I begin with the 
High School concerts.  They were performed only on weekdays 
during school hours.  The High School concerts generally 
featured the full symphony orchestra and consisted of a 
performance of "traditional classical repertoire" and other 
"serious music, all of which [was] connected to an overall 
educational theme appropriate for high school students."24  One 
such "educational theme" was a series of concerts entitled, 
"American History Through Music."  "This series looked at the 
United States through music and the humanities from its 
revolutionary beginnings through 20th Century urbanization."25   
¶143 Another example of a High School thematic concert was 
"The Cutting Edge" concert, which "celebrate[d] a handful of 
compositions that were radical departures from the music of 
their day.  Extending back over nearly three centuries, the 
concert present[ed] a chronological cavalcade of orchestral 
music that was actually shocking to its first audiences."26  The 
                                                 
23 See R. 5, Ex. 39 (Milwaukee Symphony questionnaires). 
24 Commission Decision at 22 (Finding of Fact No. 79) 
(emphasis added).   
25 Id. 
26 R. 5, Ex. KKKKKK (1992-93 High School Concerts Teacher's 
Guide). 
No.  2008AP1684.pdr 
 
15 
 
teachers' materials included biographies of each composer and an 
example of why his music was on the "cutting edge" for his day.27   
¶144 High school students received "concert program guides, 
some of which contained some explanations about the orchestra, 
background 
materials 
about 
the 
composers, 
glossaries, 
explanatory materials about the music, suggestions as to what to 
listen for, questions for thought and discussion."28 
¶145 As with the High School concerts, Middle School 
students 
attended 
concerts linked to thematic educational 
experiences.  For example, they were presented with "The Science 
of Sound" concert where "students [would] get inside that 
creative problem-solving process as they look[ed] through a 
musical 'microscope' at the most revolutionary piece in the 
history of symphonic music, Beethoven's Third Symphony!"29  "The 
Science of Sound" had a special docent program where trained 
volunteers came to middle schools to explain this intriguing 
proposition.  
¶146 "Kaleidoscope," featuring "Children of Wisconsin" and 
"Children of the World," was also presented as a Youth Concert.30  
It attempted to generate an understanding of "both our own 
                                                 
27 Id.   
28 Commission Decision at 22 (Finding of Fact No. 80). 
29 R. 5, Ex. YYYYYY (1996 Middle School Concerts Teacher's 
Guide). 
30 R. 5, Ex. MMMMMM (1993-94 Youth Concerts Program Guide 
for Teachers). 
No.  2008AP1684.pdr 
 
16 
 
culture and the cultures of distant peoples."31  The materials 
presented to the teachers explained: 
[T]his concert brings to life the musics and cultures 
of Latin America, the Pacific Rim, Europe and Africa.  
Among the common elements in this music is some very 
exciting 
drumming, 
not 
only 
by 
the 
[Milwaukee 
Symphony] 
percussionists, 
but 
also 
by 
a 
Native 
American dancer and drummer, and Earl Thompson, an 
African drummer-dancer.32  
¶147 Other Kaleidoscope materials described the composers 
of the music from around the world and from the United States.  
For example, Yagi Bushi, a Japanese composer, was presented 
through his music and his early beginnings as a "farmer's son."33  
Anton Dvorak, a Czech composer, was described in regard to his 
composition that would be played.34  Leonard Bernstein, a United 
States composer, was presented as being "particularly effective 
when evoking the nervous intensity of America's modern urban 
life."35   
¶148 The Middle School concerts were similar to the High 
School concerts except that they were geared toward a younger 
age group, students in grades 3 through 8.  Individual concerts 
were directed at different pairs of such grades.36  For example, 
one concert may be directed at third and fourth grade students, 
                                                 
31 Id. 
32 Id. 
33 Id. 
34 Id. 
35 Id.  
36 Commission Decision at 23 (Finding of Fact No. 85). 
No.  2008AP1684.pdr 
 
17 
 
while another concert may be directed to seventh and eighth 
grade students.   
¶149 As with the High School concerts, the Middle School 
concerts generally featured Milwaukee Symphony's full orchestra; 
the same three types of pre-concert materials and docent 
instruction were available to teachers upon request.  Concerts 
were likewise presented only during weekdays and during school 
hours.37   
¶150 As with the High School concerts, the Middle School 
concerts were marketed:  "1) to present live concerts which will 
excite young people and open them up to a world of symphonic 
music which they will understand and love[; and] 2) to provide 
music specialists and classroom teachers with program themes, 
relevant curriculum and effective resources which can be 
integrated into the total learning environment."38   
¶151 Milwaukee Symphony's "Kinderkonzerts were directed at 
very young children (ages 3-8)."39  Kinderkonzerts "consisted 
mostly of traditional music from the classic repertoire that 
would be appropriate for young children," but also included 
popular children's songs.40  Each concert was organized around a 
                                                 
37 See R. 5, Ex. 58 (1994-95 Youth Concerts brochure) 
(indicating that the Middle School concerts were offered at 
10:30 a.m. and 12:30 p.m.); R. 5, Ex. 27 (1994-95 High School 
Concerts order form) (indicating that the High School concerts 
were offered at 10:30 a.m. and 12:30 p.m.). 
38 R. 5, Ex. 58 (1994-95 Youth Concerts brochure). 
39 Commission Decision at 24 (Finding of Fact No. 88).   
40 Id.   
No.  2008AP1684.pdr 
 
18 
 
specific theme that influenced the entire performance.41  The 
themes were meant to "facilitate the children's learning about 
the music."42   
¶152 "Families 
that 
subscribed 
to 
the 
Kinderkonzerts 
received advanced 'Kinderkits,' consisting of written materials 
containing brief descriptions of the music and the composers, 
lists of suggested activities, materials for parents to read to 
their children regarding the music, pictures and descriptions of 
orchestra instruments, and lists of suggested readings."43  The 
Kinderkits included "Kinder Cards," which are cards featuring 
pictures of and information relating to musical instruments.  
Parents 
were 
responsible 
for 
instruction 
based 
on 
these 
materials.44   
¶153 The 
Kinderkonzerts 
often 
included 
educational 
activities in addition to the concert itself.  For example, 
concerts have featured a "Petting Zoo," in which the children 
were permitted to touch the musical instruments that they heard 
during the preceding concert.45  Other activities based on the 
music presented in the concerts were designed to create an 
interest in music among very young children.46  
                                                 
41 See id. at 25 (Finding of Fact No. 91). 
42 Id. 
43 Id. at 24-25 (Finding of Fact No. 89). 
44 Id. 
45 Id. at 25 (Finding of Fact No. 90). 
46 See id. (Finding of Fact No. 93). 
No.  2008AP1684.pdr 
 
19 
 
¶154 My examination of the record, as set forth in the 
preceding 
discussion, 
leads 
me 
to 
conclude 
that 
on 
a 
quantitative basis the educational attributes of the Youth 
Concerts 
exceeded 
the 
concerts' 
entertainment 
attributes.  
Therefore, under the Commission's test, the Youth Concerts were 
not "primarily entertainment."  Furthermore, as set forth in the 
preceding discussion, the record conclusively establishes that 
the primary purpose of Milwaukee Symphony in creating and 
presenting the Youth Concerts was educational.  Accordingly, 
under 
either 
reasonable 
interpretation 
of 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 77.52(2)(a)2., admissions to the Youth Concerts are not 
taxable.   
¶155 Although, I normally would defer to the Commission's 
application 
of 
its 
own 
interpretation 
of 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 77.52(2)(a)2., I cannot do so here because the Commission's 
conclusion that the Youth Concerts are primarily entertainment 
is based on factual findings that are not supported by credible 
and substantial evidence in the record.  See Town of Barton v. 
Div. of Hearings & Appeals, 2002 WI App 169, ¶7, 256 Wis. 2d 
628, 649 N.W.2d 293 (explaining that we will affirm an agency's 
factual 
determination 
that 
is 
supported 
by 
credible 
and 
substantial evidence).   
¶156 First, the Commission said, "Never were [the] concert 
audiences asked if they had learned anything from the [Milwaukee 
Symphony] concerts, or how [Milwaukee Symphony] could improve 
the educational value of its concerts."47  This assertion is 
                                                 
47 Id. at 65 (emphasis added). 
No.  2008AP1684.pdr 
 
20 
 
directly contradicted by the questionnaires that were sent to 
the teachers who were part of the Youth Concert audiences.48  In 
addition to that contradictory evidence, there is no substantial 
and credible testimony in the record to support the Commission's 
statement that the Youth Concert audiences were never asked 
about the educational impact of the concerts. 
¶157 Second, the Commission said, "[Milwaukee Symphony] had 
no structured instructional curriculum or specific instructional 
course . . . and no skill or knowledge was obtained or developed 
by attending concerts."49  This assertion is contradicted by the 
educational, 
instructional 
materials 
that 
accompanied 
the 
programs, "American History Through Music," "The Cutting Edge," 
"The Science of Sound," "Kaleidoscope" and "The Petting Zoo."  
Again, with regard 
to the Youth Concerts, there is no 
substantial and credible evidence to support the Commission's 
statement that no skill or knowledge was acquired.  Even the 
very young children who attended concerts, and then participated 
in the Petting Zoo, were learning which sounds came from which 
instruments as they came on stage and touched a violin, a 
trumpet or some other instrument that had been played during the 
concert.   
¶158 Third, the Commission stated, "There is no direct or 
concrete correlation between attending a concert and learning."50  
This is an unreasonable statement that shows either a lack of 
                                                 
48 See R. 5., Ex. 39 (Milwaukee Symphony questionnaires). 
49 Commission Decision at 58 (emphasis added). 
50 Id. (emphasis added). 
No.  2008AP1684.pdr 
 
21 
 
knowledge about classical music or a misperception of what is 
meant by learning.  To be educated in the appreciation of music 
is one of the pillars of a classical education.  As Igor 
Stravinsky explained when speaking of the work of classical 
composer, Robert Schumann, "'Schumann is the composer of 
childhood . . . because children learn some of their first music 
in 
his 
marvelous 
piano 
albums.'" 
 
The 
Houghton 
Mifflin 
Dictionary of Biography 1367 (2003) (quoting Igor Stravinsky, 
Themes and Conclusions (1972)).  
¶159 Accordingly, I conclude that the Commission erred in 
its application of Wis. Stat. § 77.52(2)(a)2. to the Youth 
Concerts because:  (1) it applied § 77.52(2)(a)2. based on 
factual findings for which there is not substantial and credible 
evidence in the record; (2) it applied § 77.52(2)(a)2. without 
consideration 
of 
the 
extensive 
record 
in 
regard 
to 
the 
educational attributes of the Youth Concerts; and (3) it applied 
§ 77.52(2)(a)2. based on erroneous, preconceived notions about 
the nature of music in regard to the education of children, for 
which there is absolutely no support of any type in the record.  
Accordingly, I conclude that the Youth Concerts are not 
primarily entertainment events, but rather, they are educational 
events, wherein the sale of admission tickets are not taxable 
under § 77.52(2)(a)2.51    
                                                 
51 The 
Commission's 
brief 
also 
relies 
on 
Wisconsin 
Administrative Code § Tax 11.65(1) (Sept. 2006), which addresses 
admission ticket sales that are taxable.  The administrative 
rule gives as examples of taxable ticket sales, "admissions to 
movies, ballets, musical and dance performances, ball games, 
campgrounds, circuses, carnivals, plays, hockey games, ice 
No.  2008AP1684.pdr 
 
22 
 
III.  CONCLUSION 
¶160 I concur with the conclusion reached by the majority 
opinion that tickets to Milwaukee Symphony's Classical and Pops 
Concerts are taxable under Wis. Stat. § 77.52(2)(a)2.  However, 
because I conclude that the Youth Concerts are not primarily 
entertainment within the meaning of § 77.52(2)(a)2., I also 
conclude that the Youth Concerts are not taxable events 
                                                                                                                                                             
shows, fairs, snowmobile and automobile races, and pleasure 
tours or cruises."  § Tax 11.65(1)(a). 
There is a tension between a literal reading of § Tax 
11.65(1), wherein the examples of taxable events are stated in 
rather absolute terms, and the Commission's interpretation of 
Wis. Stat. § 77.52(2)(a)2. as taxing admissions to events that 
are 
"primarily" 
amusement, 
entertainment, 
athletic, 
or 
recreational.  However, I note that an administrative rule 
cannot exceed the scope of the statute, see Oneida County v. 
Converse, 180 Wis. 2d 120, 125, 508 N.W.2d 416 (1993), and that 
the Commission is the final arbiter of the meaning of taxation 
statutes, subject only to judicial review,  Gilbert v. DOR, 2001 
WI App 153, ¶9, 246 Wis. 2d 734, 633 N.W.2d 218.  Wis. Stat. 
§ 73.01(4).  Accordingly, I have no need to address the rule 
because I have employed the Commission's interpretation of 
§ 77.52(2)(a)2. in the above discussion. 
No.  2008AP1684.pdr 
 
23 
 
thereunder.   Accordingly, I dissent from that portion of the 
majority opinion that decides that the sale of tickets to Youth 
Concerts are subject to sales tax under § 77.52(2)(a)2.    
¶161 I am authorized to state that Justice MICHAEL J. 
GABLEMAN joins this concurrence/dissent. 
 
 
 
No.  2008AP1684.pdr 
 
1