State ex rel. Von Hoffman Press, Inc. v. Saitz, 42513.

• Decision Date: 19 August 1980
• Docket Number: No. 42513.,42513.
• Citation: State ex rel. Von Hoffman Press, Inc. v. Saitz, 604 S.W.2d 770 (Mo. App. 1980)
• Parties: STATE ex rel. VON HOFFMAN PRESS, INC., a Missouri Corporation, Relator, v. The Hon. Milton SAITZ, Judge of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Division # 17, Respondent.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

604 S.W.2d 770

STATE ex rel. VON HOFFMAN PRESS, INC., a Missouri Corporation, Relator, v. The Hon. Milton SAITZ, Judge of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Division # 17, Respondent.

No. 42513.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.

August 19, 1980.

Gary L. Vincent, James D. Eckhoff, St. Louis, for relator.

Larry R. Ruhmann, Div. of Employment Sec., Jefferson City, for respondent.

DOWD, Presiding Judge.

In August of 1976, the Missouri Department of Revenue ordered Relator, Von Hoffman Press to pay an additional use tax of approximately $60,000. In December of that year, Relator was granted a hearing in connection with its petition for reassessment or abatement. The Revenue Hearing Officer affirmed in all respects the original additional assessment.

Relator then filed his petition for review by the Circuit Court of St. Louis County. Relator alleged that the additional taxes were erroneously assessed against it and should have been assessed against various out-of-state companies from which Relator had made purchases during the tax assessment period. Relator alleged that these companies were not issued exemption certificates and were, therefore, required to collect a sales tax. It was Relator's position that the Department of Revenue should be required to collect the amount assessed against Relator as use taxes from these companies as sales taxes. To support its theory Relator filed a subpoena duces tecum on deposition requesting the Division of Employment Security to appear and produce:

"1. Each and every, all and any reports or returns filed with the Division of Employment Security showing the Companies' contributions to the unemployment compensation fund as required by § 288.090, RSMo and 8 CSR 10-4.030 of the Missouri Division of Employment Security.

"2. Each and every, all and any reports or returns designated `Report on Employment Experience' filed with the Division of Employment Security by the companies as required by § 288.130, RSMo and 8 CSR-4.020 of the Missouri Division of Employment Security."

The Division of Employment Security moved to quash the subpoena and the motion was sustained on the grounds that the documents sought were confidential pursuant to § 288.270, RSMo 1969. Relator filed a petition for a writ of mandamus requesting that this court order the Honorable Milton Saitz to enforce the subpoena duces tecum. After considering Relator's petition and the suggestions filed in opposition this court granted the Preliminary Writ of Mandamus.

Department of Revenue Regulation 12 CSR 10-4.085 states that out-of-state vendors who have sufficient contacts with the State of Missouri must pay sales taxes. Those vendors not subject to sales taxes are subject to use taxes. By inspecting the documents requested from the Division of Employment Security Relator contends that it can establish that the out-of-state companies from which it made purchases had sufficient contacts with the State of Missouri to be held liable for the payment of sales taxes. Specifically Relator claims that the documents will reveal the number of persons employed in Missouri by each company and the wages paid to those employees. Relator is also interested in establishing whether any of the companies have employees who solicit orders or maintain offices in Missouri, Relator claims that this information is vital to its petition for review because if it can prove that the companies have sufficient contacts with Missouri to render them liable for sales taxes, Relator will be exempt from paying use taxes in the assessed amount.

The Director of Division of Employment Security does not disagree with Relator's interpretation of the taxing statute but rather claims that § 288.250, RSMo 1969¹ mandates strict confidentiality of this type of information. It is the director's position that § 288.250 evidences a clear legislative intent to preserve the confidentiality of all information submitted to the Division of Employment Security. The director asserts that such confidentiality is necessary to insure complete and...