New or Expanded Plant

(Rescinded January 30, 2000)
AUTHORITY: section 144.270, RSMo 1994. S.T. regulation 030-36 was last filed Oct. 28, 1975, effective Nov. 7, 1975. Refiled March 30, 1976. Amended: Filed Aug. 13, 1980, effective Jan. 1, 1981.
Rescinded and readopted: Filed Sept. 28, 1989, effective Jan. 12,
1990. Rescinded: Filed July 14, 1999, effective Jan. 30, 2000.
Wendy’s of Mid-America, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, Case
No. RS-79-0222 (A.H.C. 7/22/82). Machinery and equipment used in fast food restaurants are not entitled to section 144.030.2(4), RSMo exemption because fast food restaurants clearly do not constitute manufacturing plants. Section 144.615(6), RSMo exemption from use tax is applicable to foil, wax paper and bags used in fast food restaurants because they are held solely to be incorporated into products which are resold in the regular course of taxpayer’s business.
Jackson Excavating Co. v. Department of Revenue, 649
SW2d 48 (Mo. banc 1983). The sole issue in this case is whether machinery used to purify water for human consumption is entitled to a sales/use tax exemption under section 144.030.3.(4), RSMo as machinery used to establish a new or expand an existing manufacturing plant. In this case the Supreme Court cited West Lake Quarry & Material Co. v. Schaffner, 451 SW2d 140 (Mo.
banc 1970), and Heidelberg Central, Inc. v. Director of Revenue, 476 SW2d 502 (Mo. banc 1972), as the basis for finding that the purification of water was “a transformation of raw material by the use of machinery, labor and skill into a product for sale which has an intrinsic and merchantable value in a form suitable for new uses.” In passing, the court acknowledged the decision in State ex rel. A.M.F., Inc. v. Spradling, 518 SW2d 58 (Mo. banc 1974), where it held that the retreading of worn tire carcasses was not manufacturing, but did not distinguish it from the case at hand.
St. Joseph Light & Power Co. v. Director of Revenue, Case No.
RS-79-0162 (A.H.C. 1/21/83). Taxpayer utility company purchased a new boiler to replace a boiler that was worn out. The issue is whether the boiler’s purchase should be exempt from use tax pursuant to section 144.030.3(3), RSMo which exempts the purchase of machinery and equipment used directly for manufacturing or fabricating when the purchase is caused by reason of a design or product change, or whether it is exempt under section 144.030.3(4), RSMo as machinery or equipment used to expand an existing manufacturing plant. The Administrative Hearing Commission found that because the boiler was purchased to replace a worn-out boiler, it was precluded from finding that the machinery was purchased by reason of a design or product change. Therefore, taxpayer was not entitled to an exemption on this basis. However, the commission found that the new boiler did expand the plant’s capacity by five megawatts and allowed the boiler to operate an additional two days per month. Based upon this finding, the commission concluded that the new boiler was equipment purchased and used to expand an existing manufacturing plant in this state.
Empire District Electric Co. v. Director of Revenue, Case No. RS-79-0249 (A.H.C. 3/29/83). In this case the issue was the taxability of a transformer, concrete, oil and antifreeze used in an electric generating facility. The Administrative Hearing Commission was faced with the task of applying the new “integrated plant” theory which the Missouri Supreme Court adopted in Floyd Charcoal
Co. v. Director of Revenue, 599 SW2d 173 (Mo. banc 1980) and Noranda Aluminum v. Missouri Department of Revenue, 599 SW2d 1 (Mo. banc 1980) to determine whether these items were exempt under section 144.030.3(4), RSMo from sales and use tax as “machinery and equipment, purchased and used to establish new or to expand existing manufacturing, mining or fabricating.” The commission found that while Missouri has adopted the integrated plant theory, it is apparent from the statute limiting language that not all items used in the manufacture of a product are exempt from sales or use tax.
With respect to the oil and antifreeze the commission found, first of all, that it did not qualify as a “device” and thus could not be considered equipment and machinery. It also found that the oil and antifreeze, though used in the start up of equipment, was not solely required for installation and construction. It continued to be used in the machinery after start-up and, therefore, it was not exempt as supplies used solely for installation or construction of this machinery or equipment.
With respect to the concrete that was used to construct duct banks protecting the electrical system and manhole covers for access to the electrical system, the court found that the decision in Noranda Aluminum was not controlling, because in that case the materials in question were used to construct duct banks which prevented the spillage of molten aluminum. Because the cement in question was not used to protect the electrical system from the manufacturing process itself, it was found not to be an integral part of that manufacturing process. Therefore, the concrete was not exempt from sales or use tax.
With respect to the step-up transformer, the court found that it had two functions. It had a nonexempt function controlling the transmission of electricity to customers. The commission relied on New York law to the effect that the generation of voltage is manufacturing, the transmission of voltage is not. However, several times a year the transformer was used to start a generator which manufactures electricity. On those occasions the transformer was used in the manufacturing process. Therefore, the transformer is exempt from sales tax or use tax, because section 144.030.3(4), RSMo does not require that machinery be used exclusively or even primarily for manufacturing to qualify for exemption.