COURT OF APPEALS

DECISION

DATED AND FILED

July 25, 2023

Samuel A. Christensen

Clerk of Court of Appeals

NOTICE

This opinion is subject to further editing. If 

published, the official version will appear in 

the bound volume of the Official Reports. 

A party may file with the Supreme Court a 

petition to review an adverse decision by the 

Court of Appeals. See WIS. STAT. § 808.10 

and RULE 809.62. 

Appeal No. 2022AP1349 Cir. Ct. No. 2021CV50

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS

DISTRICT I

WILLIAM BECKER,

PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

V.

WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,

RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for La Crosse County: 

TODD W. BJERKE, Judge. Reversed and cause remanded with directions. 

Before Brash, C.J., Donald, P.J., and Dugan, J.

¶1 DONALD, P.J. The Wisconsin Department of Revenue (“DOR”) 

appeals a circuit court order that reversed a decision of the Tax Appeal 

Commission (“the Commission”). The Commission determined that “trailer type 

vehicles” sold by William Becker, the owner of Becker Trailers LLC, did not 
No. 2022AP1349

2

qualify for a sales tax exemption pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 77.54(5)(a) (2008-09).

1

 

The circuit court reversed the Commission’s decision, instead finding that the 

trailers did qualify for a sales tax exemption. For the reasons discussed below, we 

reverse the circuit court’s order and remand with instructions to affirm the 

Commission’s determination that Becker is not exempt from sales tax. 

BACKGROUND

¶2 The parties stipulated to the facts before the Commission. From 

January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2011, Becker sold “trailer type vehicles” to 

non-Wisconsin residents, who did not use the trailers in Wisconsin other than their 

removal from the state. The trailers included single axle, tandem axle, and 

gooseneck. Each of the trailers was designed to be used in conjunction with a 

pick-up truck or an automobile.

¶3 On September 23, 2013, and October 1, 2013, the DOR issued an 

assessment to Becker in the amount of $34,747.22 for individual tax, and 

$526,262.62 for sales and use tax plus interest. 

¶4 On November 22, 2013, and December 2, 2013, Becker filed a 

petition for redetermination, which was denied by the DOR on February 11, 2015. 

 

1

 As a preliminary matter, we note that the Tax Appeals Commission, the circuit court, 

and the parties’ briefs all cited and discussed WIS. STAT. § 77.54(5)(a)4., which went into effect

in 2014. See 2013 WI Act 185. However, given that the facts relevant to this case occurred prior 

to 2014, we issued an order requesting that the parties clarify what version of the statutes apply 

and whether this impacted the issues presented. In their supplemental briefs, both parties agree 

that the 2007-08, 2009-10, and 2011-12 versions of the statutes apply to the facts of this case and 

that this did not impact the issues presented. We agree with this analysis, and because the 

relevant statutory language at issue in the 2007-08, 2009-10, and 2011-12 versions are identical,

we cite to the 2007-08 version in this opinion for ease of reading. Accordingly, all references to 

the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2007-08 version unless otherwise noted. 
No. 2022AP1349

3

¶5 Becker appealed the DOR’s denial to the Commission on April 9, 

2015. The Commission granted summary judgment to the DOR, finding that 

Becker did not meet his burden to demonstrate that the DOR had erred in denying 

a sales tax exemption. The Commission noted that “[t]he fundamental question ... 

is whether the trailers sold by [Becker] are ‘truck bodies’” under WIS. STAT.

§ 77.54(5)(a). The Commission observed that the trailers sold by Becker were 

“designed to be used in conjunction with a pick[-]up truck or an automobile.” 

Further, automobiles plainly do not require “truck bodies” to serve a purpose, and 

pick-up trucks include “self-contained truck bodies as well as motors, and are also 

plainly quite often used without trailers.” Thus, there was no “necessary 

symbiotic relationship between trailers of the type sold by Becker and the motor 

vehicles that power their movement,” making them truck bodies. In addition, the 

Commission rejected Becker’s argument that the definition of a semitrailer in WIS.

STAT. § 340.01(57) was binding. 

¶6 Becker petitioned for review in the circuit court. After briefing and 

oral argument, the circuit court issued a written decision reversing the 

Commission. The circuit court found “that the trailers Becker sold are ‘truck 

bodies’” for the sales tax exemption in WIS. STAT. § 77.54(5)(a). In particular, the 

circuit court stated that:

On its own, the trailer has no use and cannot support itself, 

but once attached to the vehicle, trailers become extensions 

of the “truck body” of the towing vehicle. The chassis of 

the trailers extend the chassis of the towing vehicle to allow 

it to carry more cargo. The “truck body” of the towing 

vehicle was thereby modified for the particular purpose of 

towing cargo.
No. 2022AP1349

4

According to the court, Becker had no way of knowing that the trailers were not 

exempt from taxation. Thus, the court found that the DOR had erroneously 

interpreted the law. 

¶7 The DOR then appealed to this court. We reference additional 

relevant facts below. 

DISCUSSION

¶8 Wisconsin imposes a five percent sales tax on the sale of tangible 

personal property. WIS. STAT. § 77.52(1). However, an exemption exists for:

motor vehicles or truck bodies sold to persons who are not 

residents of this state and who will not use such ... motor 

vehicles or trucks for which the truck bodies were made in 

this state otherwise than in the removal of such ... motor 

vehicles or trucks from this state. 

WIS. STAT. § 77.54(5)(a). 

¶9 At issue in this case is the meaning of “truck bodies.” Based on the 

plain language of WIS. STAT. § 77.54(5)(a), we conclude that the trailers that 

Becker sells are not “truck bodies.” 

¶10 When interpreting a statute, we start with the language of the statute. 

State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Ct. for Dane Cnty., 2004 WI 58, ¶45, 271 Wis. 2d 

633, 681 N.W.2d 110. If the meaning of the words of a statute is plain, we stop 

our inquiry and apply the words chosen by the legislature. Id. “Statutory 

language is given its common, ordinary, and accepted meaning, except that 

technical or specially-defined words or phrases are given their technical or special 

definitional meaning.” Id. 
No. 2022AP1349

5

¶11 “In an appeal following a decision of the Tax Appeals Commission, 

we review the Commission’s decision, not the circuit court’s.” Arty’s, LLC v. 

DOR, 2018 WI App 64, ¶13, 384 Wis. 2d 320, 919 N.W.2d 590 (citation omitted). 

We defer to the Commission’s findings of fact so long as they are supported by 

substantial evidence, but we review its legal conclusions de novo. See Citation 

Partners, LLC v. DOR, 2023 WI 16, ¶8, 406 Wis. 2d 36, 985 N.W.2d 761.2 The 

party seeking the sales tax exemption has the burden to prove its entitlement, and 

any ambiguity is resolved in favor of taxation. Southwest Airlines Co. v. DOR, 

2021 WI 54, ¶24, 397 Wis. 2d 431, 960 N.W.2d 384. “[A]ll presumptions are 

against tax exemption, and an exemption should not be extended by implication.” 

Id., ¶26. 

¶12 Here, the sales tax exemption applies to “truck bodies sold to 

persons who are not residents of this state and who will not use such ... motor 

vehicles or trucks for which the truck bodies were made in this state otherwise 

than in the removal of such ... motor vehicles or trucks from this state.” WIS.

STAT. § 77.54(5)(a). As the DOR asserts, the language that “trucks for which the 

truck bodies were made” requires that the truck body be a part of a complete truck. 

Becker’s trailers are not made to be a part of a complete truck. Rather, they are 

pulled behind trucks or cars. Thus, they are not truck bodies under the plain 

language of the statute. 

 

2

 The DOR observes that the statutes provide that “due weight shall be accorded the 

experience, technical competency, and specialized knowledge of the agency involved[.]” See 

WIS. STAT. § 227.57(10). However, “[i]f an agency brings to court nothing but a rote recitation 

of its background with the subject matter, it should not expect the statutory directive to give its 

argument extra heft.” Tetra Tech EC, Inc. v. DOR, 2018 WI 75, ¶79, 382 Wis. 2d 496, 914 

N.W.2d 21. Here, the DOR does not develop an argument regarding any specific experience,

expertise, or specialized knowledge that it or the Commission possesses. Accordingly, we review 

the Commission’s decision de novo. 
No. 2022AP1349

6

¶13 In addition, the trailers sold by Becker are not entitled to a sales tax 

exemption under DOR v. Trudell, 104 Wis. 2d 39, 310 N.W.2d 612 (1981). In 

Trudell, the Wisconsin Supreme Court examined whether the sales of semitrailers 

used outside the state were statutorily exempt from sales tax. Id. at 40. Trudell

stated that a “semitrailer is built to and does carry the cargo. Without it or some 

other unit to carry the load, a tractor, which is the power unit, serves little or no 

purpose.” Id. at 42. Thus, “[w]hen the two pieces of equipment are joined, the 

semitrailer is the ‘truck body,’ and it fits that definition and purpose when 

constructed and sold.” Id. 

¶14 In contrast to the semitrailers in Trudell, Becker’s trailers do not 

satisfy this test. A trailer joined to a car or truck does not become the body of a 

completed truck. The cars and trucks that pull the trailers function separately. If 

the legislature wished to exempt trailers, it would have expressly said so as 

opposed to specifically using the term “truck body.” See Southport Commons, 

LLC v. DOT, 2021 WI 52, ¶32, 397 Wis. 2d 362, 960 N.W.2d 17 (“The legislature 

is presumed to ‘carefully and precisely’ choose statutory language to express a 

desired meaning.” (Citation omitted)). 

¶15 Becker points to the fact that the DOR has promulgated a rule 

regarding the exemption of truck bodies, which provides in pertinent part: 

The sales price from the sales of motor vehicles or truck 

bodies to nonresidents of Wisconsin ... who will not use 

the vehicles or trucks for which the truck bodies were made 

in Wisconsin other than in their removal from Wisconsin is 

exempt. Truck bodies include semi[]trailers. 

WIS. ADMIN. CODE § TAX 11.83(4)(a). Becker asserts that the trailers he sold 

qualify as semitrailers under this rule. 
No. 2022AP1349

7

¶16 The DOR, however, has no authority to add a rule that goes beyond 

the statute. See generally, Seider v. O’Connell, 2000 WI 76, ¶26, 236 Wis. 2d 

211, 612 N.W.2d 659 (“A rule out of harmony with the statute is a mere nullity.”

(Citation omitted)). Additionally, the rule does not define or purport to apply a 

definition for a semitrailer other than that in Trudell. Thus, we conclude that the 

rule does not provide support to Becker’s argument that the trailers he sold qualify 

for an exemption. 

¶17 Becker also suggests that the current definitions of “semitrailer” and 

“trailer” found in WIS. STAT. ch. 340 apply here. WIS. STAT. § 340.01(57) 

provides that:

“Semitrailer” means a vehicle of the trailer type so 

designed and used in conjunction with a motor vehicle that 

some part of its own weight and that of its own load rests 

upon or is carried by another vehicle, but does not include a 

mobile home. A vehicle used with a ready-mix motor truck 

to spread the load is considered a semitrailer.

Sec. 340.01(71) provides that:

“Trailer” means a vehicle without motive power designed 

for carrying property or passengers wholly on its own 

structure and for being drawn by a motor vehicle, but does 

not include a mobile home.

¶18 However, these statutes do not apply to WIS. STAT. ch. 77, which 

addresses general sales and use tax. The introduction to WIS. STAT. § 340.01 

provides “[i]n s. 23.33 and chs. 340 to 349 and 351, the following words and 

phrases have the designated meanings....” The introduction does not reference 

Chapter 77. Further, as Becker acknowledges, some of the definitions in § 340.01

were originally incorporated into Chapter 77, but then were eliminated in 1969. 

See WIS. STAT. § 77.52(1)(a)4. (1963-64); Ch. 154, Laws of 1969, § 240. 
No. 2022AP1349

8

¶19 Finally, Becker points to several dictionary definitions of 

“semitrailer.” These definitions, however, were not included in WIS. STAT.

§ 77.54, nor were they relied upon by Trudell. Trudell did not reference any 

dictionary definitions of “semitrailer.” Rather, Trudell concluded that the items at 

issue were truck bodies based on their purpose. See id., 104 Wis. 2d at 42. 

¶20 Therefore, we conclude that Becker does not sell “truck bodies,” 

which would entitle him to a sales tax exemption. Accordingly, we reverse the 

circuit court’s order and remand with instructions to affirm the Commission’s 

determination that Becker is not entitled to a sales tax exemption. 

By the Court.—Order reversed and cause remanded with directions.

Not recommended for publication in the official reports.