Title: Featherston v. Dir. of Revenue
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC93048
State: Missouri
Issuer: Missouri Supreme Court
Date: October 15, 2013

SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI 
en banc 
 
Les Featherston, 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
 
Respondent,  
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
vs. 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
No. SC93048 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
Director of Revenue, 
 
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
 
Appellant. 
 
) 
 
PETITION FOR REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE  
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING COMMISSION   
 
Opinion issued October 15, 2013 
 
 
The director of revenue seeks review of a decision of the administrative hearing 
commission in which the commission held that a taxpayer was not liable for use taxes 
following his in-state purchase of an airplane from an estate.  The commission’s decision 
is reversed because no use tax exemptions apply to the facts of this case. 
FACTS 
 
In 2002, Juanita Bridges liquidated her deceased husband’s estate, which included 
an airplane.  Bridges sold the airplane to Les Featherston.  She did not collect or remit 
sales tax.  Featherston stored the airplane in Missouri.  He did not pay any use tax on the 
airplane.    
 
In 2010, the director determined that Featherston should have paid $1,590.49 in 
use taxes because he had not paid sales tax on the purchase and he stored the airplane in 
Missouri.  The director sent Featherston an assessment for $2,196.89, which reflected the 
unpaid use tax plus interest. 
 
 
Featherston filed a petition for review with the commission, which determined that 
Featherston did not owe use tax because the director did not prove that Featherston 
purchased the airplane out of state.  The commission overruled the director’s motion for 
reconsideration.  The director seeks this Court’s review.  This Court has jurisdiction over 
the appeal pursuant to Mo. Const. art. V, sec. 3. 
ANALYSIS 
 
Review of the commission’s decision is governed by section 621.189, RSMo 
2000. Section 621.193, RSMo 2000, provides that the commission’s decision will be 
affirmed “if the decision is authorized by law and supported by competent and substantial 
evidence upon the record as a whole unless clearly contrary to the reasonable 
expectations of the General Assembly.”  Street v. Dir. of Revenue, 361 S.W.3d 355, 357 
(Mo. banc 2012) (internal quotations and citations omitted).  The commission’s 
interpretation of state revenue laws is reviewed de novo.  Custom Hardware Engineering 
& Consulting Inc. v. Dir. of Revenue, 358 S.W.3d 54, 56 (Mo. banc 2012).  The 
commission's findings of fact will be upheld if the findings are supported by substantial 
evidence on the whole record.  Id. 
 
The commission’s decision that Featherston did not owe any use tax on the 
airplane was premised on the conclusion that the use tax applies only to goods that are 
purchased outside the state and then used or stored within the state.  The commission’s 
conclusion is incorrect.   
 
Section 144.610, RSMo 2000, defines the scope of the use tax as follows: 
A tax is imposed for the privilege of storing, using or consuming 
within this state any article of tangible personal property purchased on 
or after the effective date of sections 144.600 to 144.745 in an amount 
equivalent to the percentage imposed on the sales price in the sales tax 
law in section 144.020.  This tax does not apply with respect to the 
storage, use or consumption of any article of tangible personal 
property purchased, produced or manufactured outside this state until 
the transportation of the article has finally come to rest within this 
state or until the article has become commingled with the general 
mass of property of this state. 
 
Nothing in the plain language of section 144.610 limits the use tax to property purchased 
out of state.  Likewise, none of the statutory exemptions from the use tax set forth in 
sections 144.615, RSMo Supp. 2011, and 144.617, RSMo 2000, exempts property that is 
purchased in Missouri.  The confusion likely stems from the fact that the most commonly 
applied use tax exemption is section 144.610.2, which provides that use tax is not owed 
on transactions involving “[p]roperty, the gross receipts from the sale of which are 
required to be included in the measure of the tax imposed pursuant to the Missouri sales 
tax law.”  The sales tax exemption means that the vast majority of in-state purchases are 
not subject to the use tax.   
 
The fact that most such transactions are exempt from use taxes does not mean that 
all such transactions are exempt.  In this case, the “gross receipts from the sale” of the 
airplane were not subject to the Missouri sales tax because Bridges, the seller, was not 
engaged “in the business of selling tangible personal property.”  Section 144.020.1, 
RSMo Supp. 2011.  Instead, Bridges made an “isolated or occasional sale of personal 
property” while in the process of liquidating her late husband’s estate.  Section 
 
3
 
4
144.010.1(2).  Id. Consequently, the exemption from the use tax for transactions in which 
sales tax already was paid does not apply to Featherston’s purchase of the airplane.   
 
There is also no evidence in this case establishing any other statutory exemption to 
the use tax.  Applying the use tax to Featherston’s purchase is not prohibited by federal 
law.  Section 144.615.1.  Featherston’s purchase is not a “transfer” that, if made in this 
state, would be exempt from or not subject to the Missouri sales tax pursuant to the 
provisions.  Section 144.030.2, RSMo Supp. 2012.  Section 144.615.3.  Featherston did 
not purchase a motor vehicle, trailer, boat or outboard motor.  Section 144.615.4.  The 
purchase was not taxed by another state.  Section 144.615.5.  The airplane was not held 
for resale.  Section 144.615.6.  The airplane was not purchased or used by Featherston 
while he was a resident of another state.  Section 144.615.7.  Finally, there is no evidence 
that the airplane was owned or used in a business so as to qualify as a “liquidation” of 
business assets exempt from use taxation pursuant to section 144.617.  
 
The plain language of section 144.610 provides that the use tax applies to all 
“storing, using or consuming within this state any article of tangible personal property 
purchased …” unless a specific exemption applies.  No exemption applies.  
Consequently, the commission erred in concluding that Featherston did not owe the use 
tax assessed by the director.  The decision is reversed.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
______________________________________  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Richard B. Teitelman, Judge 
All concur.