Justia Tax Law Opinion Summaries

The Macon County Emergency Services Board (Board) filed a petition for declaratory judgment against the Macon County Commission (Commission) seeking a judgment that it was entitled to receive a share of Mason County’s use tax revenue proportionate to its share of the county sales tax revenue. The circuit court denied the Board’s request. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Mo. Rev. Stat. 144.757 does not direct third-class counties as to the disbursement of county use tax revenue, it is within the discretion of the Commission whether to share that revenue with the Board. View "Macon County Emergency Servs. Bd v. Macon County Comm’n" on Justia Law

Office Depot, Inc., which is incorporated in the state of Delaware and headquartered in Florida, contracts with a printer to have catalogs printed in Illinois and Indiana. The Postal Service delivers the catalogs to customers in Missouri. Office Depot accrued and paid almost $85,000 in Missouri use tax based on the cost of the printed catalogs between 2008 and 2010. Office Depot filed an application for use tax refund for the amount it paid. The Director of Revenue denied Office Depot’s refund claim. The Administrative Hearing Commission reversed, finding that Office Depot was entitled to a full refund because use tax may be imposed only if Office Depot used the catalogs in Missouri but that Office Depot did not. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Office Depot did not exercise any right or power incident to ownership or control over the catalogs in Missouri, and therefore, it did not “use” the catalogs in Missouri. Consequently, Office Depot was entitled to a refund of use tax under the use tax statute. View "Office Depot, Inc. v. Dir. of Revenue" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was the Director of Revenue’s final determination regarding Harry Fischer’s 2007 income tax liability. Fischer appealed the Director’s decision to the Administrative Hearing Commission (AHC), arguing that the Director erred in assessing additions and interest under Mo. Rev. Stat. 143.741.1 and 143.731.7 in calculating his tax liability for 2005, 2006, and 2007. The AHC affirmed the Director’s final determination. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the AHC, holding (1) the addition to Fischer’s 2007 tax liability was properly assessed; and (2) interest on Fischer’s 2007 tax liability was properly assessed. View "Fischer v. Dir. of Revenue" on Justia Law

The Director of Revenue assessed Miss Dianna’s School of Dance, Inc. $23,215 plus interest in unpaid taxes. Miss Dianna’s charged fees for dance classes that instruct participants on various styles of dance. The Commission determined that Miss Dianna’s was liable for $23,984 in unpaid tax, ruling that the dance fees were taxable under Mo. Rev. Stat. $144.020.1(2) as fees to a place of amusement, entertainment, or recreation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because amusement or recreational activities comprise more than a de minimus portion of Miss Dianna’s business activities, it is considered a place of amusement or recreation with fees taxable under section 144.020.1(2); and (2) therefore, the Commission’s decision is authored by law and supported by competent and substantial evidence upon the record. View "Miss Dianna's Sch. of Dance, Inc., v. Dir. of Revenue" on Justia Law

New Garden Restaurant, Inc. received “estimated audit assessments” from the Department of Revenue notifying New Garden that it owed $43,738 in unpaid sales tax. New Garden claimed it never received final assessment notices sent by the Department of Revenue. New Garden appealed the Director of Revenue’s tax assessments against it more than two weeks past the deadline. The Administrative Hearing Commission entered a summary decision dismissing New Garden’s appeal, ruling that it had no authority to hear New Garden’s appeal because the appeal was not filed within the time limitation for doing so. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) under the circumstances of this case, there was no due process violation; (2) equitable estoppel does not excuse New Garden’s late filing; and (3) the Commission did not err in its findings. View "New Garden Restaurant, Inc. v. Dir. of Revenue" on Justia Law