Court Opinion

ID: 9678676
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:28:09.259457+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:07.013107
License: Public Domain

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR., Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
The majority holds that under the doctrine of stare decisis, Tropicana Lane’s tax liability for the rental or lease of bowling shoes is governed by this Court’s decision in Blue Springs Bowl v. Spradling, 551 S.W.2d 596 (Mo. banc 1977). I would hold that under this very same doctrine, the question of Tropieana’s tax liability is governed, instead, by this Court’s decision in Westwood Country Club v. Director of Revenue, 6 S.W.3d 885 (Mo. banc 1999).
In Blue Springs Bowl, this Court held that fees or charges paid for participating in the activity of bowling at commercial bowling establishments are subject to tax under section 144.020.1(2), which imposes a tax on “amounts paid for admission and seating accommodations, or fees paid to, or in any place of amusement, entertainment or recreation, games and athletic events.” Sec. 144.020.1(2). Relying on this holding, the majority concludes that Tropicana Lanes is not entitled to a refund of sales tax it collected on fees charged to customers for the use of bowling shoes, as these fees are paid “in or to a place of amuse*412ment.” But this conclusion is overly simplistic, because Blue Springs Bowl did not address the precise issue presented in this case. Here, in contrast, we are asked to determine whether the rental or lease of equipment utilized in a place of amusement is taxable under subsection 8 of section 144.020.1. This was the exact issue addressed in Westwood Country Club.
In Westwood Country Club, this Court examined the potential conflict between subsections 2 and 8 of section 144.020.1, and determined that subsection 8, which imposes a sales tax on the rental or lease of tangible personal property unless sales taxes were paid by the renter or seller on the original purchase of the property, is more specific than subsection 2 “in that it expressly deals with the lease of rental of personal property upon which sales tax' has already been paid.” 6 S.W.3d at 889. In accordance with the rules of statutory construction, this Court then applied subsection 8 to the controversy and ultimately concluded that because Westwood had paid sales tax on the original purchases of its golf carts, it was not liable for sales tax on the fees charged for their usage. Id.
I see no reason to depart from this analysis. Tropicana Lanes, which likewise paid sales tax on the original purchase of its rental property, should not be liable for sales tax under section 144.020.1 merely because it is the proprietor of a bowling establishment. There is simply no principled distinction between the rental of golf carts from a country club and the rental of bowling shoes from a commercial bowling establishment. Nevertheless, relying on the doctrine of stare decisis and this Court’s decision in Blue Springs Bowl, the majority finds this lack of meaningful distinction meaningless. But such a distinction is necessary, for in its absence, Blue Springs Bowl — as interpreted by the majority — cannot be reconciled with the holding of Westwood Country Club. To be sure, to the extent that Blue Springs Bowl can be read as creating liability under subsection 2 for all fees paid within a place of amusement, including those charged for the rental or lease of personal property, it is no longer good law.
For these reasons, the doctrine of stare decisis does not require the imposition of tax liability for fees collected on the rental of bowling shoes. In fact — and ironically — adherence to this doctrine requires just the opposite. The doctrine of stare decisis directs that, once a court has “laid down a principle of law applicable to a certain state of facts, it [must] adhere to that principle, and apply it to all future cases, where facts are substantially the same; regardless of whether the parties and property are the same.” Black’s Law DictionaRY 1406 (6th ed.1990). The principle of law announced in Westwood County Club is, without question, equally applicable to the case at hand.
Accordingly, I would affirm the decision of the Administrative Hearing Commission and hold that, under this Court’s opinion in Westwood Country Club, Tropicana Lanes is entitled to a refund of sales tax collected on fees charged to customers for the use of bowling shoes. To hold otherwise is to ignore, rather than obey, the principle of stare decisis.