State ex rel. Ozark Lead Co. v. Goldberg
Decision Date | 09 February 1981 |
Docket Number | No. 1,No. 62348,62348,1 |
Citation | 610 S.W.2d 954 |
Parties | STATE of Missouri ex rel. OZARK LEAD COMPANY, Respondent, v. Gerald H. GOLDBERG, Director of Revenue of the State of Missouri, Appellant |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Christopher M. Lambrecht, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for appellant.
Kelly Pool, Jefferson City, for respondent.
WELBORN, Commissioner.
Proceeding for reassessment of sales and use taxes. The Director of Revenue assessed sales and use taxes and penalties in the amount of $38,300.97 against Ozark Lead Company. The taxes were paid under protest and the taxpayer on August 8, 1976 filed a petition for reassessment pursuant to Section 144.200, RSMo 1969. The protest was heard by the Hearing Officer of the Department of Revenue on April 17, 1978. His decision, denying relief, was rendered April 6, 1979. Taxpayer filed a petition for judicial review in the Circuit Court of Reynolds County. Findings of fact, conclusions of law and judgment reversing the decision of the Director of Revenue were entered by the Circuit Court on December 6, 1979. The Director has appealed.
In this Court the first complaint of the Director is that the final decision of the Director, having been rendered April 6, 1979, after the effective date of S.B. 661 of the 79th General Assembly, was reviewable originally by the Administrative Hearing Commission under Section 144.261, RSMo 1978, and, therefore, the circuit court had no jurisdiction to hear the matter. This contention has been answered in Labrayere v. Goldberg, 605 S.W.2d 79, 82-85(1) (2) (Mo. banc 1980). The holding of that case, contrary to the contention of the appellant, is dispositive.
The only question presented is whether or not the purchases of machinery and equipment upon which the taxes were assessed are exempt from sales and use tax by reason of Section 144.030.3(4), as "Machinery and equipment * * * purchased and used * * * to expand existing * * * mining plants in the state * * *." The operative facts are not in dispute. The findings of the Department Hearing Officer set them out fairly as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Concord Pub. House, Inc. v. Director of Revenue, State of Mo.
...of industry in Missouri. Bridge Data Co. v. Director of Revenue, 794 S.W.2d 204, 206 (Mo. banc 1990); State ex rel. Ozark Lead Co. v. Goldberg, 610 S.W.2d 954, 957 (Mo.1981); Floyd Charcoal Co. v. Director of Revenue, 599 S.W.2d 173, 177 (Mo.1980); Heidelberg Central, Inc. v. Director of De......
-
GTE Automatic Elec. v. Director of Revenue, State of Mo.
...purposes behind the sales and use tax exemption was to encourage production of items subject to sales tax. State ex rel. Ozark Lead Co. v. Goldberg, 610 S.W.2d 954, 957 (Mo.1981). Application of the exemption to telecommunications could fit this goal, but this Court may not read use tax exe......
-
Bridge Data Co. v. Director of Revenue
...with this opinion. All concur. 1 Heidelberg Central, Inc. v. Director of Revenue, 476 S.W.2d 502 (Mo.1972); State ex rel. Ozark Lead Co. v. Goldberg, 610 S.W.2d 954 (Mo.1981).2 Hearst Corp. v. Director of Revenue, 779 S.W.2d 557 (Mo. banc 1989); State ex rel. Neese v. IGF Insurance Co., 706......
-
Rotary Drilling Supply, Inc. v. Director of Revenue
...Co. v. Schaffner, 451 S.W.2d 140 (Mo.1970)--removing rock from ground and crushing it constituted "mining"; State ex rel. Ozark Lead Company v. Goldberg, 610 S.W.2d 954 (Mo.1981)--purchase of machinery and equipment to expand existing operations was within the exception; State ex rel. Dravo......
-
Section 28 New or Expanded Plant
...new product lines were produced constituting an expansion of the existing manufacturing plant) State ex rel. Ozark Lead Co. v. Goldberg, 610 S.W.2d 954 (Mo. 1981) (machinery and equipment purchased to expand geographically an existing mining operation held to be exempt, even though there wa......