Management Services, Inc. v. Spradling, 59470
Decision Date | 14 March 1977 |
Docket Number | No. 59470,59470 |
Citation | 547 S.W.2d 466 |
Parties | MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., Respondent, v. James R. SPRADLING, Director of Revenue, State of Missouri, Appellant. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
S. Joel Wilson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for appellant.
William H. Sanders and Jack F. Olson, Kansas City, for respondent.
This appeal involves the construction of the Missouri Compensating Use Tax Law, § 144.600, et seq., RSMo 1969. This Court has jurisdiction of the cause pursuant to Article V, § 3, Mo.Const., because it involves the construction of a revenue law of the state.
Respondent, Management Services, Inc., is the owner of all issued and outstanding capital stock of several insurance companies, all of which are headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri. Management Services furnishes the administrative officers and employees for the insurance companies. The parent company also maintains a transportation department that makes travel arrangements for its employees.
On October 22, 1969, Management Services placed an order with Gates Aviation Corporation for the purchase of a Learjet, Model No. 25. Its Vice President and Secretary, Alfred Kuraner, negotiated the purchase of the craft and signed the purchase order accepted by Gates Aviation in Denver, Colorado, on October 30, 1969.
The aircraft was assembled in Wichita, Kansas, and flown to Denver. On January 8, 1970, the airplane was delivered to Respondent's pilot in Colorado in exchange for Respondent's check for.$928,000 which represented payment in full for the jetcraft. Several test flights were conducted by the pilot and the co-pilot employed by Respondent. On January 21, 1970, the plane was flown to Kansas City. On January 23, 1970, the plane was flown to Wichita, Kansas, to the Learjet Assembly and Service Center, and returned to Kansas City the same day. On January 25, 1970, Respondent began to use the new aircraft for business purposes, chiefly the transportation of its executives to its 20 branch offices located across the nation and in Canada. In the interval from January 21, 1970, through October 31, 1971, the plane was hangared in Kansas City on 136 occasions.
The Department of Revenue of the State of Missouri, on March 31, 1970, levied a tax of $27,840 on the aircraft. The tax was paid by Respondent under protest. Respondent also filed a claim for a tax refund in an amount identical to the tax levied and paid. In a hearing before the Department of Revenue the claim for refund was denied. Respondent obtained review of the decision of the Director of Revenue in the Circuit Court of Jackson County which held that the use of Respondent's airplane was not taxable under § 144.610, RSMo 1969. Appeal from that judgment of the circuit court was made to this Court by the Director of Revenue.
We consider first whether Missouri may constitutionally impose a use tax on Respondent's aircraft, and, secondly, if the use tax is constitutionally valid, whether Respondent's aircraft falls within an exemption provided by the Compensating Use Tax Law.
The tax for the use of Respondent's aircraft was levied pursuant to § 144.610, RSMo 1969, which provides:
No state may impose a tax on transaction of interstate commerce, U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8; however, use taxes have consistently been upheld by the United States Supreme Court and recognized as not only a means to augment state revenues but also as a means to eliminate the incentive to purchase from out-of-state merchants in order to escape local sales taxes thereby keeping in-state merchants competitive with sellers in other states. Henneford v. Silas Mason Company, 300 U.S. 577, 581-583, 57 S.Ct. 524, 81 L.Ed. 814 (1937); Southwestern Bell Tele. Co. v. Morris, 345 S.W.2d 62 (Mo. banc 1961).
The Missouri use tax is not imposed upon the article or upon its sale; rather, the tax is levied on the privilege of using, storing or consuming the article within this state. The primary function of the use tax is to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Word of Life Christian Center v. West
...opined that "the Director of Revenue contends that the `taxable moment' analysis, adopted by this Court in Management Services [v. Spradling, 547 S.W. 2d 466 (Mo. banc 1977)] and applied in King [v. L & L Marine Service, 647 S.W. 2d 524 (Mo. banc 1983)], is no longer the proper method for d......
-
Director of Revenue v. Superior Aircraft Leasing Co., Inc., 68857
...recognized as serving a dual purpose. The primary function is to "complement, supplement, and protect the sales tax." Management Services v. Spradling, 547 S.W.2d 466, 468 (Mo. banc 1977). It achieves this goal by imposing the tax on the "exercise of incidents of ownership of property that ......
-
Great American Airways v. Nevada State Tax Com'n
...26, 1979. Compare W.R. Grace & Co. v. Comptroller of Treasury, etc., 255 Md. 550, 258 A.2d 740 (1969) with Management Servs., Inc. v. Spralding, 547 S.W.2d 466 (Mo.1977) and American Airlines, Inc. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 216 Cal.App.2d 180, 30 Cal.Rptr. 590 ...
-
King v. L & L Marine Service, Inc., 64189
...in order to escape local sales taxes thereby keeping in-state merchants competitive with sellers in other states. Management Services, Inc. v. Spradling, 547 S.W.2d 466, 468 (Mo. banc Taxpayer L & L Marine readily admits structuring the purchase transaction to evade this tax. We have strong......