K & A Litho Process, Inc. v. Director of Revenue
Decision Date | 30 June 1983 |
Docket Number | No. 64585,64585 |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Parties | K & A LITHO PROCESS, INC., Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, et al., Respondents. |
Roger J. Barbieri, Vito C. Barbieri, Barbieri & Barbieri, Kansas City, for appellant.
John Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., Melodie A. Powell, Madeleine O. Birmingham, Asst. Attys. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondents.
Lawrence P. Katzenstein, Husch, Eppenberger, Donohue, Elson & Cornfeld, St. Louis, amicus curiae.
The issue for determination in this appeal is whether the lithographic process performed by K & A Litho process, Inc., for others is a sale at retail and subject to Missouri Sales Tax. The Director of Revenue's contention that the process was taxable was sustained by the Administrative Hearing Commission and this appeal followed. 1 We reverse.
K & A receives a color film transparency from an outside source, such as a printer, advertising agency, or publishing house. By a highly technical and scientific procedure the colors are separated onto a sheet of film and a cromalin or color key is prepared. A printer utilizes the color separated film in making the plate which will reproduce in printed color that which was photographically reflected in the transparency. The cromalin or color key shows the proper colors and serves as a guide to the printer in mixing ink colors so as to duplicate the colors in the transparency. Once the printer has used the color separated film and color key they serve no other function and are usually discarded. From the printer's plate comes the finished product, a printed color photograph. 2
Under the standard of review set forth in § 161.338, RSMo 1978, James v. TRES Computer Service, Inc., 642 S.W.2d 347 (Mo. banc 1982).
Missouri sales tax is imposed on the gross receipts of all sellers in this state for the privilege of engaging in the business of selling tangible personal property at retail. Section 144.020, RSMo 1978. A "sale at retail" is defined at § 144.010.1(8) as "any transfer made by any person engaged in business as defined herein of the ownership of, or title to, tangible personal property to the purchaser, for use or consumption and not for resale in any form as tangible personal property, for a valuable consideration; ...."
K & A contends its lithographic process is a service, the emphasis being the skill and experience of the lithographer, and that the color separation and color key is merely incidental to this service. In the alternative, K & A claims that the process is merely a segment of a larger production operation, and hence does not constitute a "retail sale". In either case, K & A contends there would be no taxable event.
In James v. TRES Computer Service, Inc., 642 S.W.2d 347 (Mo. banc 1982), the transaction involved a sale of computer software. This was custom-made data and computer programming, transferred to the customer through tapes containing the data. The retail value of the tapes alone was fifty dollars. Once the tapes contained the special information, however, the value was $135,000. The issue in TRES was whether there was tax owing based on the $135,000 value. The Commission found that the sale of the data on the tapes was the sale of intangible technical professional services --not tangible personal property--and the use of the information on the tapes was not the use of tangible personal property. In affirming the commission's finding, this Court held that James v. TRES Computer, 642 S.W.2d at 349.
We believe the reasoning of TRES is applicable to the process employed by K & A in the case before us. The film resulting from the color separation of the transparency contains colored dots....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
City of Boulder v. Leanin'Tree, Inc., 01SC797.
...separation served only as a medium to convey the transparency colors and had no value after having done so. K & A Litho Process, Inc. v. Director of Revenue, 653 S.W.2d 195 (Mo.1983) (where taxpayer received film transparencies and by highly technical and scientific process created color se......
-
Sneary v. Director of Revenue
...to determine the real object the buyer seeks. James v. TRES Computer Sys., Inc., 642 S.W.2d 347 (Mo. banc 1982); K & A Litho Process, Inc. v. Director of Revenue, 653 S.W.2d 195 (Mo. banc 1983). Under the test, this Court has recognized a class of transactions in which tangible personal pro......
-
Ovid Bell Press v. Director of Revenue
...or a transfer of personal property. James v. TRES Computer Systems, 642 S.W.2d 347, 349 (Mo. banc 1982); K & A Litho Process, Inc. v. Director of Revenue, 653 S.W.2d 195, 197 (Mo. banc 1983); International Business Machines Corp. v. Director of Revenue, 765 S.W.2d 611, 613 (Mo. banc 1989); ......
-
Liberty Financial Management Corp. v. Beneficial Data Processing Corp.
...available to the trial court when this case was tried. The first of these cases is capsulized in the second, K & A Litho Process v. Director of Revenue, 653 S.W.2d 195, 196-197 (Mo. banc 1983), where the following In James v. TRES Computer Service, Inc., 642 S.W.2d 347 (Mo. banc 1982), the ......
-
A Taxability of Mixed Transactions in Colorado
...then "Tax Professionals," then "FYIs." 76. Leanin' Tree, supra, note 43 at 366, citing K&A Litho Process, Inc. v. Dir. of Revenue, 653 S.W.2d 195 1983). 77. Id. 78. Leanin' Tree, supra, note 43 at 366. 79. Id. at 367, citing Transponder, supra, note 61. 80. American Cinema, 910 P.2d 64 (Col......