State and City Sales Tax Liability of Quality Service Railcar Repair Corp., Matter of, No. 16101

• Court: Supreme Court of South Dakota
• Writing for the Court: MORGAN; WUEST; SABERS
• Citation: 437 N.W.2d 209
• Decision Date: 14 October 1988
• Docket Number: No. 16101
• Parties: In the Matter of the STATE AND CITY SALES TAX LIABILITY OF QUALITY SERVICE RAILCAR REPAIR CORPORATION. . Considered on Briefs

Page 209

437 N.W.2d 209 In the Matter of the STATE AND CITY SALES TAX LIABILITY OF
QUALITY SERVICE RAILCAR REPAIR CORPORATION. No. 16101. Supreme Court of South Dakota. Considered on Briefs Oct. 14, 1988.
Decided March 15, 1989.

Timothy T. Weber, Asst. Atty. Gen., Roger A. Tellinghuisen, Atty. Gen., on the brief, and John Dewell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Pierre, for appellant, State Dept. of Revenue.

Michael M. Hickey of Bangs, McCullen, Butler, Foye & Simmons, Rapid City, for appellee, Quality Service Railcar Repair Corp.

MORGAN, Justice.

Department of Revenue (Department) appeals from a circuit court order reversing the administrative decision of Department that assessed a sales tax on Quality Service Railcar Repair Corporation (Railcar) and remanding back to Department to conduct an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

Railcar, a subsidiary of General Electric Railcar Service Corporation (General Electric), owns and operates fifteen railroad car repair facilities throughout the United States and Canada. Department conducted an audit of the Sioux Falls, South Dakota, facility for the period of December 1983 through June 1985 and assessed tax and interest in the amount of $162,000 on its gross receipts from repairs. Railcar appealed the assessment and an administrative hearing was held. Subsequently, Department concluded that Railcar's gross receipts from the service of repairing any and all railroad cars was subject to sales tax under SDCL 10-45-4 and that Railcar was not entitled to the exemption set forth at SDCL 10-45-12.3, since the location of the repair services occurring in South Dakota was controlling.

Railcar appealed the decision of the administrative proceeding to the circuit court. The trial court modified Department's conclusions of law, holding that the beneficial use exemption did apply to Railcar, but affirmed Department's order assessing the tax. In its memorandum decision, the trial court concluded that, although Department erred in its interpretation of the exemption, Railcar failed to sustain its burden of proof necessary to reduce the assessment.

Railcar moved for reconsideration and remand. After a hearing, the trial court remanded the matter back to Department to conduct an evidentiary hearing concerning the location of the "beneficial use" of the railroad cars repaired and the gross receipts derived from such repairs.

Department raises the following issues on appeal:

1) Whether the trial court erred in holding that the beneficial use exemption (SDCL 10-45-12.3) applies to Railcar;

2) Whether the trial court erred in reversing the administrative decision; and finally

3) Whether the trial court erred in remanding the matter back to Department for rehearing.

The standard of review applicable in administrative appeals is governed by SDCL 1-26-37 and SDCL 1-26-36. ^* Questions

Page 211

of law are fully reviewable. Permann v. Dept. of Labor, Unemp. Ins. D., 411 N.W.2d 113 (S.D.1987). When the issue is a question of fact, the clearly erroneous standard applies. Permann, supra; Johnson v. Skelly Oil Co., 359 N.W.2d 130 (S.D.1984).

To resolve the first issue, we must interpret the sales tax statutes involved here (a question of law).

SDCL 10-45-4 provides:

There is hereby imposed a tax at the same rate as that imposed upon sales of tangible personal property in this state upon the gross receipts of any person from the engaging or continuing in the practice of any business in which a service is rendered. Any service as defined by Sec. 10-45-4.1 shall be taxable, unless the service is specifically exempt from the provisions of this chapter.

SDCL 10-45-12.3 provides:

The tax imposed by this chapter upon persons performing services does not apply to transactions if the...