Photographers, Photofinishers and Photoengravers

(Rescinded May 30, 2003)
AUTHORITY: section 144.270, RSMo 1994. This rule was previously filed as rule no. 70 Jan. 22, 1973, effective Feb. 1, 1973. S.T.
regulation 010-37B was last filed Oct. 28, 1975, effective Nov.
7, 1975. Refiled March 30, 1976. Amended: Filed Aug. 13, 1980, effective Jan. 1, 1981. Amended: Filed Sept. 7, 1984, effective Jan.
12, 1985. Rescinded: Filed Nov. 15, 2002, effective May 30, 2003.
In The Flash Cube, Inc. v. Director of Revenue, Case No. RS-80-0083, (A.H.C. 3/16/83), the issue was whether the sale of photographic prints, slides and negatives was a taxable sale of tangible personal property or the sale of a nontaxable service.
The Administrative Hearing Commission held that sales tax was due on prints and slides because in preparing these items for the end user the taxpayer added photographic paper and cardboard frames to the finished product. Processing of negatives was held to be nontaxable service since the taxpayer did not add any of his own tangible personal property to the end user’s product.
P.F.D. Supply Corporation v. Director of Revenue, Case No. RS-80-0055 (A.H.C. 6/6/85). The issue in this case was the imposition of sales tax on certain sales transactions of shortening and nonreusable plastic and paper products which petitioner sells to restaurants for use in the preparation and service of food products.
Petitioner asserted that the sales in question were exempt as sales for resale because the purchasing restaurants were not the ultimate consumer of the goods in question. The commissioner, relying on the exemption set forth in section 144.030.3(1), RSMo for materials purchased for use in “manufacturing, processing, compounding, mining, producing or fabricating” found that the production of food by a restaurant constituted processing.
Relying on its previous decision in Blueside Co. v. Director of Revenue, Case No. RS-82-4625 (A.H.C. 10/5/84) the commission found that the petitioner’s sale of shortening was exempt from taxation to the extent that the purchaser intended for it to be absorbed into the fried foods. The sale of the portion which the purchaser did not expect to be so absorbed was not exempt as an ingredient or component part. However, petitioner asserted that the unabsorbed portion was exempt as a purchase for resale because it was sold by the purchaser for salvage after being used.
Again referring to Blueside, the commission held that the salvage sale was only incidental to the primary transaction. Therefore, the purchasing restaurant was the user and the sale to that restaurant was a taxable retail sale.
However, the commission also found that the petitioner accepted exemption certificates in good faith for all the shortening held.
Acknowledging that the Missouri Supreme Court in Overland Steel, Inc. v. Director of Revenue, 647 SW2d 535 (Mo. banc
1983) held that the good faith acceptance of an exemption certificate does not absolve the seller from liability for sales tax, the Administrative Hearing Commission cited other authority for the proposition that the seller is exempt. The commission resorted to section 32.200, art. V, section 2, RSMo (1978) of the Multistate Tax Compact which specifically provides such an exemption. The Supreme Court had not addressed this in the Overland Steel case.
Not only did respondent have a regulation, 12 CSR 10-3.194, which recognizes the applicability of section 32.200 to Missouri sales and use tax, but it had another regulation, 12 CSR 10-3.536(2), in effect at the time of the audit which specifically relieved the seller of liability when an exemption certificate was accepted in good faith.
Based upon this the commission found that the seller’s good faith exempted it from liability.
Finally, the commission held that nonreusable paper and plastic products were purchased for resale, inasmuch as they were provided to restaurant patrons as part of the cost of the food and beverages. Therefore, the sale to the restaurants was not a taxable transaction and no tax was due from the petitioner on such items.
Foto’s Copies, Inc. v. Director of Revenue, Case Nos. RS-85-0068, RS-85-0069 and RS-85-0109 (A.H.C. 6/8/87). Gross receipts from coin-operated copiers are subject to Missouri sales tax. Finding that the true object of obtaining a copy is to obtain a tangible reproduction of the original and that the information is not purchased because the purchaser already has the information on the original, the Administrative Hearing Com-mission held the transactions to be sales of tangible personal property, subject to Missouri sales tax.
Douglas J. Rousseau, d/b/a Rousseau Photography v. Director of Revenue, Case No. RS-87-0011 (A.H.C. 10/8/87). The Administrative Hearing Commission found that the photographer was making sales of class pictures directly to the students and the sales were subject to sales tax. The agreements with the schools were for the exclusive right to take the pictures at the schools and were not agreements to make sales to the schools or to act as the schools’ agent. Separate contracts were entered into by the photographer and the students for the sale of pictures. The schools had no input as to which students purchased pictures or what picture packages were purchased. In addition, the payment for the pictures were made by the students and did not come from schools’ funds.
Snap Shot Photo v. Director of Revenue, Case No. RS-87-1056 (A.H.C. 8/29/88). The Administrative Hearing Commission found that photofinishing is manufacturing and that contrary to the Department of Revenue’s position, photofinishing is an integrated process and therefore, both stages of the taxpayer’s operation were manufacturing under 144.030.2(2), (4) and (5), RSMo.
The Administrative Hearing Commission also found that all chemicals used in the photofinishing process as part of a closed vat system, and not washed away during the process, were exempt from taxation because “all such chemicals do become ingredients and component parts of all the products over time.”