Midcontinent Broadcasting Co. v. State, Dept. of Revenue, No. 15965
| Court | Supreme Court of South Dakota |
| Writing for the Court | MILLER |
| Citation | 424 N.W.2d 153 |
| Parties | MIDCONTINENT BROADCASTING CO. and South Dakota Broadcasters Association, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. STATE of South Dakota, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Defendant and Appellee. |
| Decision Date | 01 June 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 15965 |
Page 153
Association, Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v.
STATE of South Dakota, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Defendant and
Appellee.
Decided June 1, 1988.
David L. Knudson of Davenport, Evans, Hurwitz & Smith, Sioux Falls, and Charles P. Schroyer of Schmidt, Schroyer, Colwill & Barnett, Pierre, for plaintiffs and appellants.
Timothy T. Weber, Asst. Atty. Gen., Pierre, for defendant and appellee; Roger A. Tellinghuisen, Atty. Gen., Pierre, on brief.
MILLER, Justice.
Midcontinent Broadcasting and the South Dakota Broadcasters Association (hereinafter referred to collectively as Midcontinent) appeal from a circuit court decision which affirmed a declaratory ruling of the South Dakota Department of Revenue (Department). Generally, the ruling provided that radio and television stations were obligated to pay a use tax on the amount paid for certain syndicated programming. We reverse.
In 1985, Department conducted sales and use tax audits of Midcontinent. The reoccurring issue in these audits related to the taxability of payments made to third party suppliers for syndicated programming material. (Examples of the syndicated programming involved include the "Paul Harvey" news broadcast for radio and re-runs of "M*A*S*H" for television.) The syndicated program material involved is protected by copyright and is subject to use limitation by the radio or television station as to the: (1) number of uses; (2) time period within which the material must be utilized; (3) market area within which the materials
Page 154
may be used; and (4) transfer to third parties. The syndicated programming contracts also provide for exclusivity within a particular market area. Finally, some of the syndicated programming materials are provided and produced directly by radio and television stations while others are produced by independent programming production companies.After unsuccessful attempts to informally negotiate this issue, Midcontinent filed a petition for a declaratory ruling. Department ruled that South Dakota radio and television stations are obligated to pay use tax on syndicated programming payments made to third parties.
Midcontinent appealed Department's declaratory ruling to the circuit court, which affirmed Department. Midcontinent appeals to this court.
Midcontinent has raised several issues in this appeal. They argue that (1) the payments for syndicated programming are in essence copyright payments and thus not taxable; (2) the First Amendment prohibits the singling out of the media for special tax treatment; (3) syndicated programming and columns are not retail transactions but rather are wholesale transactions; (4) the syndicated programming use tax unfairly discriminates among various broadcast and media institutions; and (5) if taxable, a reduction in amount assessed is appropriate as a portion of the syndicated programming is used out of state.
Since we conclude that the transactions here are not taxable because they are wholesale rather than retail transactions, we need not address the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
WATERTOWN COOP. ELEVATOR v. Dept. of Rev., No. 21570.
...Dep't. of Revenue v. Sanborn Tel. Co-op., 455 N.W.2d 223, 225 (S.D.1990) (citing Midcontinent Broadcasting Co. v. Dept. of Revenue, 424 N.W.2d 153, 154 (S.D.1988)) (bracketed text in original). Statutes allowing tax exemptions are exactingly and narrowly construed in favor of the taxing ent......
-
Farm v. S.D. Dep't of Revenue, Nos. 26795
...that Argus Leader's regular business was selling newspapers, not syndicated materials); Midcontinent Broad. Co. v. Dep't of Revenue, 424 N.W.2d 153, 154–55 (S.D.1988) (rejecting Department argument that syndicated materials were consumed by MidContinent as end-product in order to provide re......
-
Border States Paving, Inc. v. South Dakota State Dept. of Revenue, No. 16187
...court, we make reference to the recent unanimous opinion of this Court in Midcontinent Broadcasting Co. v. State Dep't of Revenue, 424 N.W.2d 153, 155 (S.D.1988), wherein Justice Miller This is the second case in recent months in which Department, through their audit and legal departments, ......
-
Robinson & Muenster Assocs. v. Dept. of Rev., No. 20730.
...v. Sanborn Tel. Coop., 455 N.W.2d 223, 225 (S.D.1990) (alterations in original) (quoting Midcontinent Broad. Co. v. Revenue Dep't, 424 N.W.2d 153, 154 DECISION [¶ 8.] Whether the samples purchased from out-of-state providers for Robinson's customers were sold in the regular course of busine......
-
WATERTOWN COOP. ELEVATOR v. Dept. of Rev., No. 21570.
...Dep't. of Revenue v. Sanborn Tel. Co-op., 455 N.W.2d 223, 225 (S.D.1990) (citing Midcontinent Broadcasting Co. v. Dept. of Revenue, 424 N.W.2d 153, 154 (S.D.1988)) (bracketed text in original). Statutes allowing tax exemptions are exactingly and narrowly construed in favor of the taxing ent......
-
Farm v. S.D. Dep't of Revenue, Nos. 26795
...that Argus Leader's regular business was selling newspapers, not syndicated materials); Midcontinent Broad. Co. v. Dep't of Revenue, 424 N.W.2d 153, 154–55 (S.D.1988) (rejecting Department argument that syndicated materials were consumed by MidContinent as end-product in order to provide re......
-
Border States Paving, Inc. v. South Dakota State Dept. of Revenue, No. 16187
...court, we make reference to the recent unanimous opinion of this Court in Midcontinent Broadcasting Co. v. State Dep't of Revenue, 424 N.W.2d 153, 155 (S.D.1988), wherein Justice Miller This is the second case in recent months in which Department, through their audit and legal departments, ......
-
Robinson & Muenster Assocs. v. Dept. of Rev., No. 20730.
...v. Sanborn Tel. Coop., 455 N.W.2d 223, 225 (S.D.1990) (alterations in original) (quoting Midcontinent Broad. Co. v. Revenue Dep't, 424 N.W.2d 153, 154 DECISION [¶ 8.] Whether the samples purchased from out-of-state providers for Robinson's customers were sold in the regular course of busine......