Seller’s Responsibility for Collection and Remittance of Tax

(Rescinded February 28, 2011)
AUTHORITY: section 144.270, RSMo 1994. S.T. regulation 210-3 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 Sept. 7, 1984, effective Jan. 12, 1985. Rescinded: Filed Sept. 13, 2010, effective Feb. 28, 2011.
Overland Steel, Inc. v. Director of Revenue, 647 SW2d 535
(Mo. banc 1983). There were two issues in this case. The first was whether a taxpayer could claim a sales tax exemption for certain steel if sold, on the grounds that the purchasers were to use it in pollution control or plant expansion projects. The second was whether or not the transfer of steel to certain customers in Kansas was a sale subject to sales tax under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. With respect to the first issue, the court found that the taxpayer had the burden of establishing that it was exempt from sales tax, and its failure to produce sales tax exemption certificates, coupled with the dearth of testimony concerning the exempt activities of taxpayer, fails to meet that burden. With respect to the second issue, the court found that when property is purchased subject to a resale certificate, the purchaser becomes liable for sales tax if the property is not resold. In this case the court found that because the taxpayer used the steel in question in its capacity as a contractor there was no resale. Therefore, the taxable event was the taxpayer’s original purchase of the steel in Missouri. It was wholly irrelevant that the construction contract pursuant to which the steel was used was performed in Kansas.
There was no violation of the Commerce Clause, and therefore, taxpayer was liable for tax.
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 Administrative Hearing Commission, 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 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.
Besel Roofing & Heating, Inc. v. Director of Revenue, Case No.
RS-86-0240 (A.H.C. 8/27/87). The contractor contested liability on the grounds that the seller should not have accepted the exemption certificate it offered because the certificate was missing information required by the department on a valid certificate.
The Administrative Hearing Commission rejected the argument and held that where the exemption is improperly claimed, the department can recover from the purchaser.