Source: https://leatherneckblogger.com/2013/02/
Timestamp: 2018-01-19 23:10:14
Document Index: 180540803

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 144', '§ 144', '§ 144', '§ 144', '§ 32', '§ 144', '§ 144', '§ 144', '§ 144', '§ 32', '§ 32', '§ 144', '§ 144', '§ 144', '§ 144', '§ 144', '§ 144', '§ 32', '§ 144', '§ 144', '§ 144', '§ 144', '§ 144', '§ 66', '§ 144', '§ 144', '§ 144', '§ 144', '§ 144']

February | 2013 | Leatherneck Blogger
STREET V. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE – THE CASE THAT DECLARED LOCAL USE TAX UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN MISSOURI
Street v. Director of Revenue[1]
Opinion handed down January 31, 2012
Craig Street purchased a boat, outboard motor, and trailer in Maryland. Upon returning to Missouri, he registered the items with the Missouri Department of Revenue, at which time he paid local sales tax under protest. The Director of Revenue denied his refund request, and he appealed to the Administrative Hearing Commission (AHC). The AHC determined Street was not entitled to a refund. The Supreme Court of Missouri reversed this decision. The court reasoned that the purchase was not subject to local sales tax because such taxes may only be imposed to the same extent as the state sales tax, which only apply to in-state purchases. Further, although a local use tax could potentially be imposed on the purchase, the county in which Street resided had not adopted a local use tax.
After purchasing a boat, outboard motor, and trailer in Maryland, Craig Street returned to his home in Greene County, Missouri.[2] When Street registered these items with the Missouri Department of Revenue, he was required to pay local sales tax.[3] He paid the tax under protest and filed for a refund with the Director of Revenue. The Director of Revenue denied the request, and Street appealed to the AHC, which likewise determined Street was not entitled to a refund of the local sales tax.[4] In reaching this decision, the AHC first concluded that the Missouri General Assembly intended that in-state and out-of-state motor vehicle purchases be taxed alike.[5] It then concluded the local sales tax applied to the same extent as that of the Missouri Sales Tax Law, and that Street’s purchase was subject to the state motor vehicle use tax law, which is within the Sales Tax Law.[6] Also, it reasoned that the legislature specifically exempted motor vehicle purchases from the Compensating Use Tax Law; therefore, a local use tax on motor vehicles could not be imposed.[7] The AHC also concluded that, under two statutory provisions, the purchase was deemed to have occurred in Greene County, permitting the imposition of the local sales tax.[8]
On appeal to the Supreme Court of Missouri, Street contended that the AHC erred in concluding that his out-of-state purchase occurred at his residence and that imposing a sales tax on his out-of-state purchase was inconsistent with the legislative intent that sales tax be imposed only on in-state purchases.[9] Much like the AHC, the court began by looking to the legislative intent.[10] The court looked to the state sales and use tax laws, recognizing that there were specific provisions relating to motor vehicles.[11] The court also looked to the statutes authorizing local sales and use taxes.[12] It noted that Greene County had adopted a local sales tax, but it had not adopted a local use tax.[13] Accordingly, the county could only impose on Street’s purchase local sales tax “to the same extent and manner” as the state sales tax laws, pursuant to the statute authorizing local sales tax.[14] The court provided that the extent of those laws was clear from the language of the statutes: only sales within the state were taxable.[15] The court remarked that this interpretation was consistent with the court’s prior reading of “nearly identical” statutes.[16] Therefore, it held the AHC’s decision was “unauthorized by law and clearly contrary” to the legislature’s reasonable expectations.[17]
The court then addressed the AHC’s interpretations of the state tax statutes.[18] The court believed the first misstep by the AHC was its reading of the statute authorizing local use tax.[19] The AHC read the statute to authorize only local use tax on transactions subject to the Compensating Use Tax Law, of which the motor vehicle use tax was specifically excluded.[20] The court believed the true import of the language in the statute was to limit the rate of tax to be imposed, not the authority to impose tax.[21] Thus, so long as the locality submits the use tax proposal to a voter referendum, it could impose a local use tax on motor vehicles.[22] The court believed this error led the AHC to conclude the statute authorizing local sales tax permitted a sales tax on out-of-state purchases, which disregards the language limiting it to in-state purchases and “frustrate[s] the voter referendum requirement.”[23] Further, the AHC’s conclusion that two state statutes deemed the out-of-state purchase as occurring at the buyer’s residence was incorrect because there are two possible interpretations of those statutes. [24] Accordingly, the statutes had to be construed in the taxpayer’s favor.[25] Finally, the court summarily dismissed the argument that the motor vehicle tax was a special tax that was not subject to sales tax limitations.[26]
The Missouri Sales Tax Law spans from §§ 144.010 to 144.525 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri.[27] Section 144.020 provides that “[a] tax is hereby levied and imposed upon all sellers for the privilege of engaging in the business of selling tangible personal property or rendering taxable service at retail in this state.”[28] Section 144.021 also expressly states that the purpose of §§ 144.010 to 144.510 is to “impose a tax upon the privilege of engaging in the business, in this state[.]”[29] The plain language of these statutes limits the scope of the sales tax to in-state transactions, which the court correctly highlighted.[30] Besides the plain language, it is obvious that the tax under § 144.020 only applies to in-state purchases given the existence of a compensating use tax.[31] Further, although the plain language and complementary statutory scheme sufficiently indicate that sales tax is limited in scope to sales in Missouri, there are also constitutional issues surrounding the imposition and enforcement of a tax on nonresidents.[32]
A compensating use tax is used to impose a tax on the “exercise of incidents of ownership of property that was not subject to the sales tax at the time of its acquisition.”[33] Section 144.610 imposes a tax on the privilege of storing, using, or consuming personal property. The purpose of the use tax is to “eliminate[] the incentive to purchase from out-of-state merchants in order to escape local sales taxes,” which keeps in-state sellers competitive and supplements state revenues.[34] The Missouri tax law includes provisions specifically related to the sale and use of motor vehicles, trailers, boats, and outboard motors in §§ 144.070 and 144.440 that essentially reflect the obligations found in the sales and use tax statutes.
Besides state taxes, the Missouri statutes also permit local sales taxes under § 32.087. This statute provides that an ordinance or order imposing a local sales tax must do so “to the extent and in the manner provided in section 144.010 to 144.525.” Similarly, § 144.757 permits a local use tax to be imposed “at the same rate as the local sales tax then currently in effect in the county or municipality upon all transactions which are subject to the taxes imposed pursuant to sections 144.600 to 144.745.” A voter referendum is required before a local sales or use tax may be imposed.[35]
At first glance, it would seem as if the issue in this case is easily settled. The complementary nature of the sales and use tax statutes would appear to prohibit the AHC’s outcome and endorse the Supreme Court of Missouri’s outcome. This complementary scheme stands for the following proposition: If the sale occurs in Missouri, sales tax applies; if the sale occurs outside of Missouri, use tax applies. The statutes authorizing local sales and use taxes essentially reflect the state taxes. However, for a locality to impose such a tax, it must formally adopt it. Here, Greene County did not adopt a use tax; therefore, Street’s out-of-state purchase is not subject to any local use tax, and he need only pay state use tax. The issue in this case was caused by the placement of the motor vehicle use tax law in § 144.440, which falls under the Sales Tax Law instead of the Compensating Use Tax Law.[36] The Compensating Use Tax Law specifically excludes motor vehicles from its reach, which are already covered by § 144.440.[37]
The court’s interpretation of § 144.757, the statute authorizing local use tax, is questionable. First, the interpretation is a bit inconsistent with its interpretation of similar language in § 32.087, the statute authorizing local sales tax. The court utilized the language in § 32.087 that local sales taxes be imposed “to the extent and in the manner provided in section 144.010 to 144.525,” to limit local sales tax to the scope of those laws, which the court determined was limited to in-state purchases only. However, the court interpreted the language in § 144.757.3, that “local use tax may be imposed at the same rate as the local sales tax then currently in effect in the county or municipality upon all transactions which are subject to the taxes imposed pursuant to sections 144.600 to 144.745,” as a limitation on rates, not the scope. Interpreting the language as a limitation on rates does not make sense because the rates are already limited to the same rate as the local sales tax in the first subsection of the statute.[38]
At the very least, the statute is ambiguous, meaning the court’s ultimate outcome is correct because all ambiguities must be construed in favor of the taxpayer.[39] However, if the county had enacted a local use tax, the taxpayer may have been found liable. The court’s decision in this case has effectively cured poor drafting by the legislature. To express its likely true intent, the legislature should have recodified § 144.440 to fall within the Compensating Use Tax Law, instead of leaving it in the Sales Tax Law provisions, or it should have amended § 144.757.3 to provide that a local use tax may be imposed upon all transaction subject to taxes imposed pursuant to §§ 144.440 and 144.600 to 144.745.
[1] No. SC91371 (Mo. Jan. 31, 2012) (en banc), available at http://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=52257. The opinion has not been released for publication yet but can be found at Street v. Dir. of Revenue, 2012 WL 704145 (Mo. 2012) (en banc).
[5] Id. In Missouri, there are specific tax provisions relating to the sale and use of motor vehicles, trailers, boats, and outboard motors. Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 144.070 and 144.440 (2000). For the purposes of this summary, the phrase “motor vehicle” is used to refer to motor vehicles, trailers, boats, and outboard motors.
[6] Street, No. SC91371, slip op. at 3.
[7] Id. at 3, 10.
[11] Id. at 5-6 (citing Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 144.010 to 144.525 and 144.600 to 144.761 (2000)).
[12] Id. at 8 (citing §§ 32.087.5 and 144.757.3).
[16] Id. at 9-10 (citing Binkley Coal Co. v. Smith, 179 S.W.2d 17 (Mo. 1944) (en banc)).
[19] Id. (citing Mo. Rev. Stat. § 144.757.3 (2000)).
[20] Id. at 10-11.
[27] Mo. Rev. Stat. § 144.010.3 (2000).
[28] § 144.020.1.
[29] § 144.021.
[30] Street, No. SC91371, slip op. at 9.
[31] §§ 144.600 to 144.745.
[32] Robert C. White, State Sales and Use Taxes – Variations, Exemptions, and the Aviation Industry, 45 J. Air L. & Com. 509, 516-17 (1980).
[33] Dir. of Revenue v. Superior Aircraft Leasing Co., Inc., 734 S.W.2d 504, 506 (Mo. 1987) (en banc) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
[34] Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted).
[35] For local sales tax, numerous provisions apply. See, e.g., §§ 66.600, 67.391, 67.505, 67.550, 67.581. For local use tax, see § 144.757.1.
[36] The Sales Tax Law includes §§ 144.010 to 144.525, and the Compensating Use Tax Law spans from §§ 144.600 to 144.745.
[37] § 144.615(4).
[38] § 144.757.1.
[39] President’s Casino, Inc. v. Dir. of Revenue, 219 S.W.3d 235, 239 (Mo. 2007) (en banc).
February 28, 2013 at 06:00
One Reformer’s Heroic Story to Save America’s Public School Children
Daniel Doherty is the Townhall.com Web Editor. Follow him on Twitter@danpdoherty.
Michelle Rhee is a lifelong Democrat and education reformer who has recently come out in support of school vouchers. Writing in the Daily Beast a few days ago, she explained the prevailing reason for her change of heart: Her countless (and at times) heartbreaking interactions with devastated parents coping with the realization that their child would be stuck in a failing school — forever. And the feeling that there was nothing she could do for them:
Perhaps the most moving excerpt from her editorial is when she points out the flawed reasoning of a close — presumably fellow Democratic — friend:
I was having a heated discussion one day with one of my closest friends, a public school teacher. She was deriding voucher policy. My public policy wonkiness was not serving me well, so I decided to change tactics.
“Right,” I said, “that would be a voucher.”
What’s more, she continued, the reasoning behind opposing school vouchers is completely illogical and doesn’t stand up to scrutiny:
I agree. Children simply can’t wait five, fifty, or 100 years for inner-city public schools to “fix” themselves. Children need access to a high quality education now — that is, from the moment they enter the classroom. And any policy that makes this possible should at least be universally considered, right?
The teachers unions — for many of the reasons Rhee gives at the beginning of her must read article — overwhelming oppose any sort of voucher program. It takes money away from schools that need it most, they argue, and the program can’t help everyone. Okay. But wasn’t it the president who said — in an admittedly different context — that if we can do anything to save one child, “then surely we have an obligation to try”? Rhee’s testimony is compelling evidence that such initiatives help children, and have given hundreds (if not thousands) of low-income students an opportunity to succeed.
The teachers unions always claim that they’re “for the kids,” but how can you be “for the kids” if you demonize a program that opens doorways of opportunity to students that would otherwise be closed to them? In other words, the question isn’t necessarily why should you support school vouchers — it’s why shouldn’t you? I’ve yet to hear an anti-voucher advocate articulate a rational response to this question, at least one that takes into account this simple fact: A low-income family given a school voucher is better off than the countless students left — year after year — helpless and alone and trapped in failing schools.
The special interests need to reconcile and re-think their opposition to this important program. It’s about time they did.
February 25, 2013 at 06:00
When I recently moved back to Jackson,
I had high hopes my grand kids would see,
The Indian Pride
that I took in stride
among students and faculty.
A grade school where parents and teachers
Who knew the children best,
Had a voice that was heard,
in conveying their words
And weren’t constantly put to the test.
In my day the board was respected
to research decisions, then vote
With consciences clear,
and kid’s futures so dear…
following policy by rote.
What I found instead was appalling
Mass confusion, petty fogging, and stalling..
No accountability at all,
The Dr’s laid down the law,
some board member’s rubber stamps kept falling.
Football teams, band and the choir,
Still kept us appearing 1st rate.
But in a few short years,
compared to their peers,
the A C T scores will be society’s fate.
Tenured teachers no longer valued for input,
Parent’s concerns can’t be heard by the board,
The job losses are wide,
And the freedom of speech we adored?
“What happened to this fine district?”
My family’s alumni mourned
percents and ABCs
Are now 1,2,and 3s
And a challenging curriculum scorned.
The only choice my grand kids said sadly,
Is to enroll in parochial class.
But those schools bust at the seams
Along with our dreams,
of the Jackson R2 of the past.
So citizens who pay taxes in Jackson,
you’re a stakeholder and voice for US ALL!
On April 2, please go
Vote against status quo,
And again we can stand proud and tall!
February 22, 2013 at 06:00
February 21, 2013 at 06:00
“Fiscal Cliff” in Plain English
*U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
*Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000
*New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
*National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
*Recent budget cuts: $ 38,500,000,000
*Annual family income: $21,700
*Money the family spent: $38,200
*New debt on the credit card: $16,500
*Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
*Total budget cuts so far: $38.50
Let’s say, You come home from work and find there has been a sewer backup in your neighborhood….
Raise the ceilings, or remove the sewage?
February 19, 2013 at 06:00
This is one of the very best emails I have EVER received where it gently explains the difference in thinking between people with opposite outlooks.
A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be very liberal, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words Redistribution of Wealth. She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Conservative, a feeling she openly expressed.
Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.
Her wise father asked his daughter, “Then why don’t you go to the Dean’s office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.”
The daughter, visibly shocked by her father’s suggestion, angrily fired back, “That’s a crazy idea. How would that be fair? I’ve worked really hard or my grades! I’ve invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!”
The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, “Welcome to the Conservative Side of the fence, dear Daughter.”
SO=================
If a conservative doesn’t like guns, he simply doesn’t buy one.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him
If a conservative decides he needs health care. He goes about shopping for it or may choose a job that provides it.
A liberal will delete it because he’s “Offended by The Truth.”
February 18, 2013 at 06:00
Cape County Commission and Taxes
February 15, 2013 at 05:00
Posted in Politics, Self-governance, Taxes