International Business Machines Corp. v. Director of Revenue, State of Mo.
| Decision Date | 14 February 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 70386,70386 |
| Parties | INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Byron E. Francis, St. Louis, for appellant.
William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Richard L. Wieler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
This is an appeal from a final decision of the Administrative Hearing Commission (Commission) involving the construction of a revenue law of the state of Missouri. We have exclusive jurisdiction. Mo. Const. art. V, § 3.
Appellant, International Business Machines Corporation, (IBM), is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of New York and authorized to conduct business in the state of Missouri. IBM's business includes, among other things, the marketing of several types of computers as well as the sale and licensing of large numbers of computer software programs to customers in the state of Missouri. 1
For a customer who used a "mini" or "mainframe" computer, IBM would offer the customer the choice of a number of computer software programs, for specific tasks such as payroll, inventory control, etc., as well as operational programs. 2 Evidence before the Commission demonstrated the procedure for supplying a customer with this type of computer program would begin with an IBM marketing representative visiting the customer to determine what the customer needed in terms of specific software requirements. IBM has its various types of computer software listed in a Software Directory. The customer would choose the type of software required, and an IBM systems engineer would then be responsible for insuring the technical requirements of the software, for example making sure the software is adapted to the specific customer's type of machine. The computer software program, once assembled, 3 is then delivered to the customer via disc, diskette, tape, or punched cards. Once the customer has programmed his computer, the instruction says he is to return the tapes to IBM.
For 1981 and 1982, IBM paid sales tax on all software programs licensed to Missouri customers. In 1983, IBM then made refund requests in the amounts of $25,926.28 and $1,424,662.00. Both claims were denied by the Director, at which time IBM appealed to the Commission. After the Commission affirmed the denial of the refund, IBM sought review in this court. We affirm.
A review of the case law shows taxability determinations are made based upon various reasons. One line of cases establish the general rule that all software is an intangible. See District of Columbia v. Universal Computer Associates, Inc., 465 F.2d 615 (1972); Commerce Union Bank v. Tidwell, 538 S.W.2d 405 (Tenn.1976); First National Bank v. Dep't. of Revenue, 85 Ill.2d 84, 51 Ill.Dec. 667, 421 N.E.2d 175 (1981); Greyhound Computer v. St. Dep't., 271 Md. 674, 320 A.2d 52 (1974). Maccabees v. Treasury Dep't., 122 Mich.App. 660, 332 N.W.2d 561 (1983); State v. Central Computer Services, Inc., 349 So.2d 1156 (Ala.Civ.App.1977); In the Matter of the Protest of Strayer, 239 Kan. 136, 716 P.2d 588 (1986); First National Bank of Fort Worth v. Bullock, 584 S.W.2d 548 (Tex.Civ.App.1979); Detroit Automobile Interinsurance Exchange v. Department of Treasury, 138 Mich.App. 696, 361 N.W.2d 373 (1984); General Business Systems Inc. v. State Board of Equalization, 162 Cal.App.3d 50, 208 Cal.Rptr. 374 (1 Dist.1984); In the Matter of the Appeal of AT & T Technologies, Inc., 242 Kan. 554, 749 P.2d 1033 (1988).
Another line of cases stand for the opposite, namely that computer software is tangible property. See Chittenden Trust Company v. King, 143 Vt. 271, 465 A.2d 1100 (1983); Comptroller of the Treasury v. Equitable Trust Company, 296 Md. 459, 464 A.2d 248 (1983); Citizens and Southern Systems Inc. v. South Carolina Tax Commission, 280 S.C. 138, 311 S.E.2d 717 (1984); Pennsylvania and West Virginia Supply Corp. v. Rose, 368 S.E.2d 101 (W.Va.1988); Hasbro Industries, Inc. v. Norberg, 487 A.2d 124 (R.I.1985).
Still other cases hold "canned" programs constitute tangible property, and "custom" programs do not, Measurex Systems, Inc. v. State Tax Assessor, 490 A.2d 1192 (Me.1985), and others tax only the operational software, while not taxing the application software, Strayer, supra.
The wide divergence of results demonstrates both the importance of and the necessity for state legislatures updating their taxing laws in terms of modern technology. The divergent results suggest that as a matter of policy, a good case can be made for taxing the use of all software, none of the software, or only part of the software. 4
IBM's sales tax refund request alleged the refund was due because "the fact that this tax amount was paid in connection with the marketing of computer programs and such activity has been declared not subject to tax in James v. Tres Computer Systems Inc., No. 63662 (Mo.Sup.Ct. Dec. 3, 1982)". [642 S.W.2d 347 (Mo. banc 1982) ]. IBM's broad reason supporting their request for refund was correctly interpreted by the Commission to preclude determination of issues not raised in Tres. 5 No question regarding whether IBM sold leased, rented, or licensed the software was properly before the Commission, and hence is not before this court.
The Commissioner examined whether the tapes were the ultimate object of the sale, and whether the fact that the programs could have been delivered over telephone lines shielded the programs from tax. These were the only issues in Tres the Commissioner thought reviewable.
In Tres, the issue was not whether the software involved in the case was tangible or intangible. The parties stipulated that the software was intangible. The other issue examined by Tres was whether the manner by which the software was delivered to the customer changed it from intangible to tangible personal property. Judge Donnelly, writing for the majority, found that the software remained intangible and was not subject to the tax. The various possible forms for delivering the software, by tapes, by discs, by diskettes, or by telephone were all examined and the court concluded that the fact that the software could be delivered in many different ways did not effect the substantive nature of what was attempted to be taxed. 6 In addition to the fact that the software itself had been stipulated to be intangible personal property, the Tres court emphasized the evidence of customization of the software and the fact that the process of customizing bore more of the characteristics of a service transaction than a sale of property. 7
The evidence in the present case does not support an attempt to classify the programs like those in Tres. IBM lists its programs in a Directory, and after the particular customer selects a program, existing canned programs may be modified to fit the particular customer's needs.
On the evidence before us, we can only conclude that modifications of cataloged software were minimal, if any. The Commissioner found the modifications were related to fitting programs together so that all programs would operate together and in synchronization with each other, and that modifications were not made to the basics of the program structure. There appears little similarity to the programs in Tres.
The Commissioner also found the tapes to be the ultimate objects of the transactions, noting the crucial role the tapes play in the bargaining process. The tapes were ready to use to program the customer's machine, which is another difference from Tres. 8
The second point examined by the Commissioner was the "alternative methods of delivery argument"--the possibility that this software could have been delivered to the customer via telephone lines. The "alternative methods" argument has been considered in several cases. See Maccabees, Central Computer, Bullock, and Tidwell, supra. It is questionable whether this issue is before us. IBM stipulated that the only manner by which the programs were delivered was by tapes, discs, diskettes or punched cards. None were delivered by telephone lines. While there was evidence that there were printed instructions on the tapes to the effect that they must be returned to IBM, the instructions also said for the customer to copy the tape and retain the copy as a backup. We see no distinction between keeping the original tape and copying the tape and returning...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mark O. Haroldsen, Inc. v. State Tax Com'n
...medium used to transfer computer information or data is the essence of the transaction. E.g., International Business Mach. Corp. v. Director of Revenue, 765 S.W.2d 611, 613 (Mo.1989); Financial Computer Servs., Inc. v. Lindley, 70 Ohio St.2d 243, 245, 436 N.E.2d 1025, 1026 (1982). This Cour......
-
Andrew Jergens Co. v. Wilkins
...by the CompuServe court was James v. TRES Computer Sys., Inc. (Mo.1982), 642 S.W.2d 347. However, in Internatl. Business Machines Corp. v. Dir. of Revenue (Mo.1989), 765 S.W.2d 611, the Missouri Supreme Court held that canned programs are tangible and subject to sales tax. The court noted t......
-
Burlington Northern R.R. v. Director of Revenue
...of the General Assembly. Wolff Shoe Co. v. Director of Revenue, 762 S.W.2d 29, 31 (Mo.banc 1988); International Business Machines v. Director of Revenue, 765 S.W.2d 611, 614 (Mo.banc 1989); § 621.193, RSMo 1986. Tax exemption provisions are to be strictly construed against the party claimin......
-
Sneary v. Director of Revenue
...I believe that applying the standards suggested above, the taxpayer should prevail. I therefore dissent. 1 International Business Machines Corp. v. Director of Revenue, 765 S.W.2d 611 (Mo. banc 1989) (holding that standardized computer programs sold through a software directory were subject......