PCS, Inc. v. Arizona Dept. of Revenue, TX

Decision Date16 November 1993
Docket NumberNo. TX,TX
Citation176 Ariz. 628,863 P.2d 920
PartiesPCS, INC. v. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE. 93-00201.
CourtArizona Tax Court
OPINION

SCHAFER, Judge.

The Taxpayer, PCS, Inc. (PCS), brought this action against the Arizona Department of Revenue contesting use taxes imposed against it under A.R.S. § 42-1408. The issue presented is whether the processing of blank plastic cards into prescription plan identification cards is "use," "storage,"or "consumption" in Arizona. A.R.S. §§ 42-1401, 1454.

PCS is a manager of prescription drug benefits. It sells a service plan to sponsors who provide prescription drug benefits to employees covered by the plan. Approximately 98% of the plans are "RECAP SM" plans which allow a participating pharmacist to have on-line capabilities with the PCS computers, located at PCS headquarters in Scottsdale, Arizona. By "swiping" the RECAP card, which is magnetically encoded with information, the pharmacist can submit his claim directly to PCS electronically and he may receive information about the sponsor's plan at the same time.

PCS orders blank plastic cards from out-of-state vendors and has them shipped to its headquarters in Scottsdale. PCS accumulates covered employee and plan sponsor information and enters it into its computer in Arizona. The blank cards are then processed and imprinted with the covered employee's name, plan sponsor information and any other pertinent information, including plan sponsor 800 telephone numbers.

Once the cards are processed and imprinted they are shipped to plan sponsors for distribution to their covered employees. About 91% of the processed cards are shipped to out-of-state plan sponsors; the remaining 9% are used by plan sponsors within Arizona. Once the processed cards have been shipped to plan sponsors or covered employees, PCS neither retains ownership of the cards nor receives the cards back.

PCS has processed as many as 27 million blank cards in a year and at any one time it may have up to 8 million blank cards at its Scottsdale facilities.

In 1990, the Department of Revenue ("Department") audited PCS for the period January 1, 1986, through January 31, 1990. The Department made a deficiency assessment which included, among other items, a use tax imposed on all of the blank cards brought into and processed in Arizona, including those shipped and used out-of-state.

PCS challenges the propriety of the use tax on the cards processed here and shipped out of state. 1 It contends the card processing activities do not fall within the scope of the use tax, and, even if the processing falls within the scope of the tax, the Department is estopped from assessing the tax. It also argues the assessment may not be done retroactively.

The Court finds PCS's blank card processing is a "use" and "consumption" in Arizona and PCS is subject to the use tax. The Court also finds the cards shipped out of state are "stored" while they are in Arizona.

ANALYSIS

Arizona imposes an excise tax on "the storage, use or consumption in this state of tangible personal property purchased from a retailer." A.R.S. § 42-1408(A). It is presumed tangible personal property purchased elsewhere and brought into Arizona is purchased for storage, use or consumption in this state and is therefore subject to the use tax. A.R.S. § 42-1402. The taxpayer has the burden to prove its activities are not taxable.

The Department claims when PCS processes the cards in Arizona it uses, consumes, and stores them here and is, therefore, subject to Arizona's "use" tax. PCS claims its processing operations are merely preparatory and it uses, consumes and stores nothing in Arizona.

A. "Use" or "Consumption"

"Use or consumption" is very broadly defined in the Arizona statutes as "the exercise of any right or power over tangible personal property incidental to owning the property except holding for sale or selling the property in the regular course of business." A.R.S. § 42-1401(8). The Random House Dictionary of the English Language defines "use" as "to employ for some purpose; put into service; make use of" and it defines "consume" as "to destroy or expend by use; use up." By either definition, PCS used and consumed the blank cards in Arizona because it exercised right and power over them. It used the cards as platforms to hold information and it consumed them in the reforming process--they virtually disappeared, going in as inert pieces of plastic, coming out as intricate electronic devices.

There are no cogent Arizona cases. PCS cites a handful of near misses from other states. The closest seems to be Exxon Corp. v. State Board of Equalization, 783 P.2d 685 (Wyo.1989) in which the Wyoming Supreme Court discussed the definition of the word "use" in its tax statutes. Wyoming's statutory definition of "use" is almost identical to ours--"the exercise of any right or power over tangible personal property incident to ownership...." Id. at 688. The fact situation in that case is quite like ours, but different--there was no reformation process in Exxon. The issue before the Wyoming court was whether Exxon, a New Jersey corporation, had used pipe in Colorado when it bought the pipe from a Texas vendor, had it shipped to Colorado where a coating of epoxy was put on it to prepare it for installation and then shipped it to Wyoming where it was installed as part of a pipeline. The court said it looked to the nature of the property, its intended use, and whether the property had actually been used in Colorado. It concluded the pipe's intended use was installation in the Wyoming pipeline and the activities in Colorado were merely preparatory for the pipe's ultimate intended use. Therefore the pipe was not "used" in Colorado. Throughout its journey the pipe remained pipe, its nature never changed and its intended use never changed. That is not true of the plastic cards in this case; their nature and intended use changed appreciably once they began their journey and were processed.

B. "Storage"

Arizona's use tax may also be imposed on tangible personal property which is held in "storage" in Arizona. A.R.S. § 42-1408. "Storage" is defined as "keeping or retaining tangible personal property purchased from a retailer for any purpose except sale in the regular course of business or subsequent use solely outside this state." A.R.S. § 42-1401(6). Thus, property kept in Arizona for any purpose, even changing it from a plastic card to an electronic device, is "stored" in Arizona because it is kept here for a purpose--processing.

There is an exception to the definition of "storage" in section 42-1401(6)--property is not stored in Arizona if it is kept here to be later used outside the state. But, the exception is a limited one. It applies only when the sole use to which the property is put occurs outside of Arizona. That is not true here; the cards are put to use in Arizona. The fact they may also be used when they go to other states does not change the fact that they are used here.

C. Estoppel

PCS argues even if the cards are subject to the use tax the Department is estopped from collecting the tax. It argues it relied on the Department's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Com, Inc. v. Dir. Taxation (In re Priceline)
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Hawai'i
    • March 4, 2019
    ...at 194, 166 P.3d at 367 (citing Fitzgerald v. City of Bangor, 726 A.2d 1253, 1255–56 (Me. 1999) ; PCS, Inc. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, 176 Ariz. 628, 630, 863 P.2d 920, (Ariz. T.C. 1993) ).In so holding, this court quoted from Fitzgerald v. City of Bangor, a decision by the Supreme Judicial......
  • Com, Inc. v. Dir. Taxation (In re Priceline)
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Hawai'i
    • March 4, 2019
    ...Id. at 194, 166 P.3d 367 (citing Fitzgerald v. City of Bangor, 726 A.2d 1253, 1255-56 (Me. 1999); PCS, Inc. v. Ariz. Dep't of Revenue, 176 Ariz. 628, 630, (Ariz. T.C. 1993)). In so holding, this court quoted from Fitzgerald v. City of Bangor, a decision by the Supreme Judicial Court of Main......
  • Director of Taxation v. Medical Underwriter
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Hawai'i
    • August 30, 2007
    ...to interfere inadvertently with the government's fundamental sovereign power to tax its citizens."); PCS, Inc. v. Ariz. Dep't of Revenue, 176 Ariz. 628, 863 P.2d 920, 922 (T.C.1993) ("[T]here can be no estoppel involved against a sovereign state. The failure of the tax commission to attempt......
  • PCS, Inc. v. Arizona Dept. of Revenue
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Arizona
    • December 29, 1995
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT