Motor Fuel and Other Fuels

(Rescinded July 30, 2018)
AUTHORITY: section 144.270, RSMo 1994. This rule was previously filed as rule no. 46 Jan. 22, 1973, effective Feb. 1, 1973. S.T.
regulation 030-12 was last filed Dec. 31, 1975, effective Jan. 10,
1976. Refiled March 30, 1976. Amended: Filed Aug. 13, 1980, effective Jan. 1, 1981. Amended: Filed Dec. 3, 1985, effective Feb. 24,
1986. Rescinded: Filed Jan. 18, 2018, effective July 30, 2018.
In Hern v. Carpenter, 312 SW2d 823 (1958), where subsection 144.030.2, RSMo exempts plaintiffs, who are farmers (purchasers) and a corporate distributor (seller) of motor fuel, from payment of sales tax on sales and purchases of such fuel, the court held all sales of gasoline are exempt from liability for sales tax, including those sales where purchaser declares his intention not to use gasoline for highway purposes and in fact obtains a refund of motor fuel tax paid.
Missouri Public Service Company v. Director of Revenue, 733 SW2d 448 (Mo. banc 1987). Since there is no statutory definition of fuel, the Supreme Court attributed to the work its plain and ordinary meaning. The court found Rolfite exempt from use tax because it is a fuel material which produces heat by burning and is consumed in the manufacture of electricity. The court stated that the fact Rolfite is used primarily for other purposes does not change its essential functional character as a fuel.
Lady Baltimore of Missouri, Inc. v. Director of Revenue, Case
Nos. RS-83-2819 and RS-83-2820 (A.H.C. 9/9/87). The petitioner argued that it is exempt under 144.030.2(1), RSMo because diesel fuel is subject to the special fuel tax. The Administrative Hearing Commission held that where the special fuel tax is not paid upon purchase, the fuel is not subject to an excise or sales tax under another law of the state and the sales tax exemption does not apply. Therefore sales tax is due and payable.
The taxpayer in the alternative argued that the respondent was required to collect the tax from the vendor rather than the petitioner as a purchaser. The Administrative Hearing Commission found that under the facts of this case that the petitioner had purchased the special fuel under an improper claim of exemption and was therefore liable for sales tax.