Ben Hur Steel Worx, LLC v. Dir. of Revenue
Decision Date | 13 January 2015 |
Docket Number | No. SC 94209,SC 94209 |
Citation | 452 S.W.3d 624 |
Parties | Ben Hur Steel Worx, LLC, Appellant, v. Director of Revenue, Respondent. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Marc H. Ellinger, James B. Deutsch, Thomas R. Schwartz Jr., Blitz, Bardgett & Deutsch LC, Jefferson City, for Ben Hur.
Deputy Solicitor General Jeremiah J. Morgan, Attorney General's Office, Spencer A. Martin, Department of Revenue, Jefferson City, for Director.
Ben Hur Steel Worx, LLC (“Ben Hur”) is a subcontractor that purchases steel beams and other steel components that are used to fulfill its contracts to construct steel frames for large-scale commercial buildings and structures. Ben Hur petitioned the Director of Revenue for sales and use tax refunds under § 144.054.2.1 The Director denied the request, and Ben Hur appealed to the Administrative Hearing Commission (“AHC”). The AHC decided that Ben Hur did not meet the requirements for a tax exemption under § 144.054.2 and affirmed the Director's denial of Ben Hur's request for sales and use tax refunds. Ben Hur then petitioned this Court for review of the AHC's decision. The decision of the AHC is affirmed.
Ben Hur's refund applications were for various months in 2008, 2009, and 2010 and sought nearly $200,000. The AHC found the following facts:
This case involves the construction of a revenue law, providing this Court with exclusive appellate jurisdiction. Mo. Const. art. V, § 3 ; see also § 621.189. This Court reviews the AHC's interpretation of a revenue statute de novo. AAA Laundry & Linen Supply Co. v. Dir. of Revenue, 425 S.W.3d 126, 128 (Mo. banc 2014). The AHC's decision will be upheld if authorized by law and supported by substantial and competent evidence on the record as a whole, if no mandatory procedural safeguard is violated, and if the affirmation of the AHC's decision does not create a result clearly contrary to the General Assembly's reasonable expectations. Section 621.193, RSMo 2000.
Tax exemptions are strictly construed against the taxpayer. AAA Laundry, 425 S.W.3d at 128. A taxpayer must show by “clear and unequivocal proof” that it qualifies for an exemption, and all doubts are resolved against the taxpayer. Id. Section 144.054.2 exempts the following from sales tax:
[E]lectrical energy and gas, whether natural, artificial, or propane, water, coal, and energy sources, chemicals, machinery, equipment, and materials used or consumed in the manufacturing, processing, compounding, mining, or producing of any product, or used or consumed in the processing of recovered materials, or used in research and development related to manufacturing, processing, compounding, mining, or producing any product....
(Emphasis added.)
The primary rule of statutory interpretation is to give effect to the General Assembly's intent as reflected in the plain language of the statute at issue. Parktown Imports, Inc. v. Audi of Am., Inc., 278 S.W.3d 670, 672 (Mo. banc 2009). This Court looks to canons of statutory interpretation only when the meaning of a statute “is ambiguous or would lead to an illogical result that defeats the purpose of the legislation.” Ivie v. Smith, 439 S.W.3d 189, 202 (Mo. banc 2014). This Court interprets statutes in a way that is not hyper-technical, but instead, is reasonable and logical and gives meaning to the statute. Id. at 203.
In the context of this case, Ben Hur must prove three criteria to qualify under § 144.054.2 for the sales and use tax exemption: (1) that it consumed or used materials (2) during the manufacturing, processing, compounding, or producing (3) of a product. Fred Weber, Inc. v. Director of Revenue, 452 S.W.3d 628, No. SC94109, 2015 WL 161751 (Mo. banc 2015). The taxpayer has the burden of proof. Aquila Foreign Qualifications Corp. v. Dir. of Revenue, 362 S.W.3d 1, 3 (Mo. banc 2012). If the taxpayer fails to meet any of these three criteria, the taxpayer does not qualify for exemption under § 144.054.2. See Aquila, 362 S.W.3d 1 ; Union Elec. Co. v. Dir. of Revenue, 425 S.W.3d 118 (Mo. banc 2014) ; AAA Laundry, 425 S.W.3d 126 ; Fenix Constr. Co. v. Dir. of Revenue, 449 S.W.3d 778 (Mo. banc 2014) ; Fred Weber, Inc. v. Director of Revenue, 452 S.W.3d 628, No. SC94109, 2015 WL 161751 (Mo. banc 2015). The second prong is dispositive in this case.
In Union Elec. Co., this Court held that the General Assembly intended the plain and ordinary language of § 144.054.2 to apply only to “what can best be described as large-scale industrial activities.” 425 S.W.3d at 124. Ben Hur, however, is not engaged in this type of large-scale industrial activity. It is engaged in construction. See Fred Weber, Inc. v. Director of Revenue, 452 S.W.3d 628, No. SC94109, 2015 WL 161751 (Mo. banc 2015). The word “construction” does not appear in § 144.054, nor do any words that would be associated...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Roesing v. Dir. Revenue
...or absurd result that defeats the purpose of the legislation, rules of statutory construction are employed. Ben Hur Steel Worx, LLC v. Dir. of Revenue , 452 S.W.3d 624, 626 (Mo. banc 2015). Because section 577.041.1’s purpose would be defeated if privacy were not inherent in the statute’s r......
-
Bulfin v. Rainwater
... ... statute.' ... Id. (quoting Ben Hur Steel Worx, LLC v ... Dir. of Revenue, 452 S.W.3d 624, 626 (Mo ... ...
-
C.T. v. J.L.L.
... ... Hur Steel Worx, LLC v. Dir. of Revenue , 452 S.W.3d 624, ... 626 (Mo. banc ... ...
-
C.T. v. J.L.L.
...is to give effect to the General Assembly's intent as reflected in the plain language of the statute at issue." Ben Hur Steel Worx, LLC v. Dir. of Revenue , 452 S.W.3d 624, 626 (Mo. banc 2015). The plain language of Section 452.402.7 allows for "reasonable attorney fees and expenses to the ......