Title: Ben Hur Steel Worx, LLC v. Dir. of Revenue
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC94209
State: Missouri
Issuer: Missouri Supreme Court
Date: January 13, 2015

SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI 
en banc 
 
BEN HUR STEEL WORX, LLC,  
 
  ) 
 
 
  ) 
Appellant, 
 
 
  ) 
v. 
 
 
 
 
 
  ) 
 
No. SC94209 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  ) 
DIRECTOR OF REVENUE,  
 
 
  ) 
  ) 
Respondent.  
 
  ) 
 
PETITION FOR REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE  
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING COMMISSION 
The Honorable Sreenivasa Rao Dandamudi, Commissioner 
 
Opinion issued January 13, 2015 
 
 
Ben Hur Steel Worx, LLC ("Ben Hur") is a subcontractor that purchases steel 
beams and other steel components that are used to fulfill its contracts to construct steel 
frames for large-scale commercial buildings and structures.  Ben Hur petitioned the 
Director of Revenue for sales and use tax refunds under § 144.054.2.1  The Director 
denied the request, and Ben Hur appealed to the Administrative Hearing Commission 
("AHC").  The AHC decided that Ben Hur did not meet the requirements for a tax 
exemption under § 144.054.2 and affirmed the Director's denial of Ben Hur’s request for 
sales and use tax refunds.  Ben Hur then petitioned this Court for review of the AHC’s 
decision.  The decision of the AHC is affirmed. 
 
                                                          
 
1 All statutory citations are to RSMo Supp. 2013, unless otherwise specified. 
Factual and Procedural Background 
Ben Hur's refund applications were for various months in 2008, 2009, and 2010 
and sought nearly $200,000.  The AHC found the following facts: 
1. Ben Hur is a Missouri limited liability corporation, which was 50% 
owned by Ben Hur Construction Company at all times relevant to this case. 
 
2. One of Ben Hur's business endeavors is subcontracting with commercial 
construction companies for the provision of labor, materials, and equipment 
necessary to furnish and install structural steel beams, plates, angles, and 
other components in the process of construction of large scale commercial 
buildings and structures.  During the relevant time, Ben Hur would often 
partner with Ben Hur Construction Company to accomplish installation for 
these jobs. 
 
3. In order to fulfill its contractual obligations, Ben Hur buys steel beams 
and steel plates directly from steel mills, at times when the mills are 
producing the size and shape Ben Hur needs for a particular project, or 
from steel supply houses that keep inventories of such materials when they 
are not available from the mills. 
 
4. Ben Hur does not pay sales or use tax on its purchase of steel beams and 
plates. 
 
5. Once it purchases the steel, Ben Hur may modify the steel beams 
according to project drawings and specifications by performing various 
tasks such as cutting them to length, drilling holes and slots in them, 
beveling the edges, cambering or curving the steel, coping or cutting the 
steel at an angle, grinding, painting, and attaching other steel pieces, such 
as angles, clips, or steel plate [sic] by bolting or welding. 
 
6. If the steel components it purchases are for a taxable construction 
project, Ben Hur pays tax on the components.  If the project is for a tax-
exempt entity, such as a qualified educational institution or healthcare 
organization, Ben Hur does not pay sales tax on the purchased materials. 
 
7. Ben Hur maintains a facility in Lemay, Missouri, where it uses 
machinery and equipment to modify raw steel components by shaping and 
finishing them.  At that facility, large pieces of steel are processed using 
large saws, drills, grinders, and welding equipment while being moved and 
transferred by cranes and hydraulic lifts. 
3 
 
8. Typically, Ben Hur buys and prepares steel components for incorporation 
into large scale commercial buildings. 
 
9. In some instances, Ben Hur prepares such components for other 
contractors and collects sales tax from those contractors when the 
components are sold. Those transactions are not the subject of this appeal. 
 
10. At all times relevant to this appeal, when Ben Hur was a party to the 
construction contract, it employed all of the labor, materials, and equipment 
necessary to deliver and install fabricated structural components in 
buildings. 
 
Analysis 
 
This case involves the construction of a revenue law, providing this Court with 
exclusive appellate jurisdiction.  Mo. Const. art. V, § 3; see also § 621.189.  This Court 
reviews the AHC's interpretation of a revenue statute de novo.  AAA Laundry & Linen 
Supply Co. v. Dir. of Revenue, 425 S.W.3d 126, 128 (Mo. banc 2014).  The AHC's 
decision will be upheld if authorized by law and supported by substantial and competent 
evidence on the record as a whole, if no mandatory procedural safeguard is violated, and 
if the affirmation of the AHC's decision does not create a result clearly contrary to the 
General Assembly's reasonable expectations.  Section 621.193, RSMo 2000.     
Tax exemptions are strictly construed against the taxpayer.  AAA Laundry, 425 
S.W.3d at 128.  A taxpayer must show by "clear and unequivocal proof" that it qualifies 
for an exemption, and all doubts are resolved against the taxpayer.  Id.  Section 144.054.2 
exempts the following from sales tax: 
[E]lectrical energy and gas, whether natural, artificial, or propane, water, 
coal, and energy sources, chemicals, machinery, equipment, and materials 
used or consumed in the manufacturing, processing, compounding, 
mining, or producing of any product, or used or consumed in the 
processing of recovered materials, or used in research and development 
4 
 
related to manufacturing, processing, compounding, mining, or producing 
any product . . . .  
 
(Emphasis added.)   
The primary rule of statutory interpretation is to give effect to the General 
Assembly's intent as reflected in the plain language of the statute at issue.  Parktown 
Imports, Inc. v. Audi of Am., Inc., 278 S.W.3d 670, 672 (Mo. banc 2009).  This Court 
looks to canons of statutory interpretation only when the meaning of a statute "is 
ambiguous or would lead to an illogical result that defeats the purpose of the legislation."  
Ivie v. Smith, 439 S.W.3d 189, 202 (Mo. banc 2014).  This Court interprets statutes in a 
way that is not hyper-technical, but instead, is reasonable and logical and gives meaning 
to the statute.  Id. at 203.   
In the context of this case, Ben Hur must prove three criteria to qualify under         
§ 144.054.2 for the sales and use tax exemption: (1) that it consumed or used materials 
(2) during the manufacturing, processing, compounding, or producing (3) of a product.  
Fred Weber, Inc. v. Director of Revenue, ___ S.W.3d ___, No. SC94109 (Mo. banc 
2015).  The taxpayer has the burden of proof.  Aquila Foreign Qualifications Corp. v. 
Dir. of Revenue, 362 S.W.3d 1, 3 (Mo. banc 2012).  If the taxpayer fails to meet any of 
these three criteria, the taxpayer does not qualify for exemption under § 144.054.2.  See 
Aquila, 362 S.W.3d 1; Union Elec. Co. v. Dir. of Revenue, 425 S.W.3d 118 (Mo. banc 
2014); AAA Laundry, 425 S.W.3d 126; Fenix Constr. Co. v. Dir. of Revenue, ___ S.W.3d 
___, No. SC93915, 2014 WL 6679523 (Mo. banc 2014); Fred Weber, Inc. v. Director of 
5 
 
Revenue, ___ S.W.3d ___, No. SC94109 (Mo. banc 2015).  The second prong is 
dispositive in this case. 
In Union Elec. Co., this Court held that the General Assembly intended the plain 
and ordinary language of § 144.054.2 to apply only to "what can best be described as 
large-scale industrial activities."  425 S.W.3d at 124.  Ben Hur, however, is not engaged 
in this type of large-scale industrial activity.  It is engaged in construction.  See Fred 
Weber, Inc. v. Director of Revenue, ___ S.W.3d ___, No. SC94109 (Mo. banc 2015).  
The word "construction" does not appear in § 144.054, nor do any words that would be 
associated with construction activities.  The General Assembly knows how to delineate 
between construction activities and the large-scale industrial activities it intended to 
exempt in § 144.054.2.  This is best demonstrated by another tax exemption statute 
within chapter 144.   
Section 144.062 provides a tax exemption for materials purchased for the "purpose 
of constructing, repairing or remodeling" for certain tax-exempt entities.  It describes 
various types of exempt entities, and among them are various types of healthcare 
organizations and "[a]ny institution of higher education supported by public funds or any 
private not-for-profit institution of higher education."  Section 144.062.1(2) and (3).  The 
AHC's factual findings make it clear that not only was Ben Hur aware of the tax 
exemption for construction materials in § 144.062.1, it used that exemption.  The AHC 
found that Ben Hur paid tax on the steel components it purchased for a construction 
project with a non-exempt entity.  However, Ben Hur did not pay tax if the project was 
for a tax-exempt entity, such as a qualified educational institution or healthcare 
6 
 
organization.  These factual findings dovetail with the language of § 144.062.  This is 
evidence that not only was Ben Hur engaged in construction, but it also was taking 
advantage of construction-oriented tax exemptions. 
Ben Hur is now trying to use § 144.054.2 as a way to seek tax reimbursement for 
materials purchased to fulfill construction contracts it has with non-exempt entities.  This 
is contrary to the language and interpretation this Court has given § 144.054.2.  Had the 
General Assembly meant for "construction" activities to be included in § 144.054.2, it 
would have used terminology associated with construction activities.  It also could have 
achieved the same result by expanding § 144.062 to allow an exemption for materials 
purchased for use in construction for non-exempt entities.  This is not what the General 
Assembly chose to do. 
Further, as expressed by the AHC in its decision, if Ben Hur were allowed a tax 
exemption for its construction activities, it would cut against one of this Court's well-
settled principles stated in Blevins Asphalt Construction Company v. Director of 
Revenue,  938 S.W.2d 899 (Mo. banc 1997).2  The taxpayer in Blevins argued that it was 
not required to pay tax on the materials it purchased from its suppliers because the 
asphalt it manufactured was tangible personal property, sold for the purpose of final use 
or consumption.  Id. at 901.  This Court upheld the AHC's denial of the exemption, 
reasoning that "it is a settled proposition that contractors and subcontractors are the 
consumers of materials purchased and used in the fulfillment of a construction contract 
                                                          
 
2 While Blevins interprets § 144.030.2(2), RSMo 1994, the principles stated within it are equally 
applicable in interpreting § 144.054.2 in this case.     
7 
 
and are therefore liable for sales and use taxes."  Id.  (citations and internal quotation 
marks omitted).  The Court also held "[m]aterials purchased by a contractor for use in 
meeting contractual obligations for the improvement of real property are used or 
consumed by the contractor; they are not resold."  Id.  (citations and internal quotation 
marks omitted).  These principles apply here.   
Ben Hur is a subcontractor using steel beams, plates, angles, and other 
components to fulfill its contractual obligations to construct steel frames for commercial 
buildings.  Because Ben Hur is using these construction materials in fulfillment of its 
construction contracts, an activity not exempt under the plain and ordinary language of   
§ 144.054.2, it has failed to meet all three statutory criteria and does not qualify for a 
sales and use tax exemption.  The decision of the AHC is affirmed. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
__________________________ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Zel M. Fischer, Judge 
 
 
All concur.