Saddle & Sirloin Club of Kan. City v. Dir. of Revenue

• Court: Missouri Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: Zel M. Fischer, Judge
• Citation: Saddle & Sirloin Club of Kan. City v. Dir. of Revenue, 655 S.W.3d 351 (Mo. 2022)
• Decision Date: 01 November 2022
• Docket Number: SC 99453
• Parties: SADDLE AND SIRLOIN CLUB OF KANSAS CITY, Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, Respondent.

655 S.W.3d 351

SADDLE AND SIRLOIN CLUB OF KANSAS CITY, Appellant,

v.DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, Respondent.

No. SC 99453

Supreme Court of Missouri, en banc.

Opinion issued November 1, 2022

Saddle and Sirloin was represented by Todd W. Ruskamp of Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP in Kansas City, (816) 474-6550, and John W. Simpson of Stinson LLP in Kansas City, (816) 842-8600.

The director was represented by Maria A. Lanahan of the attorney general's office in St. Louis, (573) 751-3321.

Zel M. Fischer, Judge

Saddle and Sirloin Club of Kansas City (the "Club") seeks review of the Administrative Hearing Commission's (the "Commission") decision that the Club owes sales tax on monthly membership dues paid by Club members because the dues are fees paid to a place of amusement, entertainment, or recreation pursuant to § 144.021.1.¹ This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to article V, § 3 of the Missouri Constitution. The Commission's decision is affirmed.

Facts and Procedural History

The Club is a Kansas not-for-profit corporation authorized to do business in Missouri as a federal-tax-exempt entity.² The Club's headquarters, and principal place of business, is Kansas City, Missouri. The Club owns and maintains, at its headquarters, trail-ride facilities, boarding stables, riding arenas, shooting facilities, a clubhouse, and dining and party rooms.

From December 2003 through November 2006, and September 2009 through August 2012 (collectively, the "Period"), the Club collected and remitted Missouri sales tax, pursuant to § 144.021.1, on monthly membership dues collected from Club members and also on charges for meals and drinks sold to Club members.

During the Period, the Club had several membership levels, including: resident membership, non-resident membership, life membership, honorary membership, associate membership, senior membership, service membership, shooting sports membership, and premium senior membership. Club members paid initiation fees, monthly membership dues, and monthly capital assessments to the Club. The Club charged monthly membership dues based on metrics such as age and family status. Resident members paid a higher initiation fee than non-resident members. If a non-resident member becomes a resident, the member must pay the difference between the two fees. Members pay additional sums to the Club to board and train horses; provide food during activities; and pay for shooting activities, swimming, golf, tennis and poker games. From December 2003 to November 2006, dues from voting members generated approximately $1.3 million and non-voting member dues generated approximately $52,000. For September 2009 through August 2012, dues from voting members generated approximately $1.7 million and non-voting member dues generated approximately $104,000. During the Period, the Club bylaws specified Club members could be expelled for failure to pay membership dues. Memberships are not transferable and cannot be sold or bequeathed.

The Club board of directors had the authority, in the 2009 Club bylaws, to eliminate or add levels of membership and specify voting rights. For most of the Period, all levels of membership had voting rights, except non-resident members, associate members, and shooting sports members. The Club could not sell real property without a vote by the members, but the members did not have an ownership interest in the Club. The Club's bylaws provided no member had any property right or interest in any property or assets of the Club. When a member resigned his or her membership, he or she did not receive a distribution or payment from the Club. Upon dissolution of the Club, members may vote to determine what happens to Club assets.

During the Period, the Club paid sales tax only on monthly membership dues, not capital assessments. The Club treated membership dues as "gross receipts" on its income tax returns. In October 2012, the Club submitted a tax-refund claim to the Missouri Department of Revenue (the "Department"). The Club claimed it erroneously collected and remitted sales tax on food and beverage sales and service charges thereon from September 2009 through August 2012. In October 2013, the Club submitted a tax-refund claim to the Department and claimed it erroneously collected and remitted sales tax on monthly membership dues, food and beverage sales, and service charges thereon from December 2003 through November 2006. The Director gave a partial refund on a portion of each claim, specifically a portion of the food and beverage sales.

The Club filed two suits against the Department before the Commission, one addressing each tax-refund claim submitted to the Department. In each of these suits, the Club argued the Department should have: (1) fully refunded sales tax on amounts the Club charged its members for food, beverages, and related services charges; and (2) refunded sales tax on amounts the Club charged its members for monthly membership dues. After a hearing, the Commission determined the Club is not entitled to a refund on its monthly membership dues but was entitled to a full refund on the food and beverage sales.

The Club seeks this Court's review of the Commission's decision that the club was not entitled to a refund on monthly membership dues.

Standard of Review

"This Court will uphold the Commission's decision when it is authorized by law and supported by competent and substantial evidence upon the record as a whole unless clearly contrary to the reasonable expectations of the General Assembly." New Garden Restaurant, Inc. v. Dir. of Revenue , 471 S.W.3d 314, 317 (Mo. banc 2015) (internal quotations omitted); see also § 621.193, RSMo 2016. "The Commission's interpretation of state revenue laws is reviewed de novo. " 801 Skinker Blvd. Corp. v. Dir. of Revenue , 395 S.W.3d 1, 4 (Mo. banc 2013). "The Commission's findings of fact will be upheld if the findings are supported by substantial evidence on the whole record." Id.

A statute allowing a refund must be strictly construed against the taxpayer. Ins. Co. of Pa. v. Dir. of Revenue & Dir. of Ins. , 269 S.W.3d 32, 35 (Mo. banc 2008). Section 144.190.2, RSMo 2016, the applicable statute permitting tax refunds, provides, in relevant part:

If any tax, penalty or interest has been paid more than once, or has been erroneously or illegally collected, or has been erroneously or illegally computed, such sum shall be credited on any taxes then due from the person legally obligated to remit the tax under chapter 144, and the balance, with interest as determined by section 32.065, shall be refunded to the person legally obligated to remit the tax[.]

In a proceeding before the Commission, the taxpayer has the burden to prove it is entitled to the refund unless one of the exceptions of § 621.050.2, RSMo 2016, applies.³ See Alberici Constructors, Inc. v. Dir. of Revenue , 452 S.W.3d 632, 638 (Mo. banc 2015).

Analysis

Section 144.020.1(2) provides:⁴

A tax is hereby levied and imposed upon all sellers for the privilege of engaging in the business of selling tangible personal property or rendering taxable service at retail in this state. The rate of tax shall be as follows:

A tax equivalent to four percent of the amount paid for admission and seating accommodations, or fees paid to, or in any place of amusement, entertainment or recreation, games and athletic events[.]

The parties agree the Club provides recreational activities. The parties also agree monthly membership dues were paid, at least in part, for recreational activities. The Club argues, however, the monthly membership dues are not subject to sales tax because Club members received, in addition to recreation services, the right to participate in the operation and control of the Club and an increase in the value of their equitable interests in the Club.

This Court has held, under the plain meaning of § 144.020, charges that relate to the right to use club facilities and services are subject to sales tax. St. Louis Country Club v. Admin. Hearing Comm'n of Mo. , 657 S.W.2d 614, 617 (Mo. banc 1983). Pursuant to § 144.020.1(2), monthly membership dues are subject to sales tax if two requirements are satisfied: (1) the monthly membership dues must constitute fees paid to or in a place of amusement, entertainment or recreation; and (2) the Club must be a seller engaged in the business of selling tangible personal property or rendering a taxable service at retail in this state. See Old Warson Country Club v. Dir. of Revenue , 933 S.W.2d 400, 402 (Mo. banc 1996).

In Old Warson , this Court held while "charges which relate to the right to enjoy the use of the club facilities are for services and subject to sales tax[,]" "[n]ot every charge exacted from members of a social or recreational organization is for goods or services." Id. at 403. "[F]ees paid for the right to participate in the operation and control of the organization are not paid in exchange for goods or services" and, therefore, are not taxable. Id. In Meramec Valley , this Court similarly noted "payment of dues by a member of the Association for which the member receives something other than recreational service is not subject to sales tax." Meramec Valley Owners’ Ass'n, Inc. v. Dir. of Revenue , 936 S.W.2d 794, 796 (Mo. banc 1997).

In both Old Warson and Meramec Valley , members held an equity interest in the organization's property. 933 S.W.2d at 403 ; 936 S.W.2d at 796. In Old Warson , this Court determined capital assessments paid by members with an equity ownership in the club were not taxable because improving the property necessarily improved the value of the members’ ownership interest, while capital assessments paid by members without an equity ownership in the club were taxable as purchases to use the club's facilities and services.⁵ 933 S.W.2d at 403-04. In Meramec Valley , this Court determined annual dues paid by members, who all had an equity ownership in the Association, were not taxable because the Association used the annual dues to maintain the...