UNIVERSAL IMAGES INC. v. MISSOURI DEPT. OF REV., 61474.
| Decision Date | 15 December 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 61474.,61474. |
| Citation | 608 S.W.2d 417 |
| Parties | UNIVERSAL IMAGES, INC., Appellant, v. MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Charles C. Shafer, Jr. and Herman M. Shaffer, Kansas City, for appellant.
John Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., Arnold Day, Richard Wieler, Asst. Attys. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
STOCKARD, Commissioner.
Following an audit of the records of Universal Images, Inc., appellant herein, the Director of Revenue, made a use tax assessment for the period of January 1, 1974 to November 30, 1976 in the amount of $3,799.02, which included penalties and interest. Appellant filed a petition for reassessment pursuant to § 144.680 (), and after a formal hearing a final decision was entered November 27, 1978 upholding the assessment. After an unavailing petition for review in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, an appeal has been perfected to this court.
Appellant is a Missouri corporation located in Raytown and is engaged in the business of providing custom produced film for business concerns, the majority of which consists of commercial advertisements shown in indoor and outdoor theaters. Appellant secures agreements with theaters to display commercial advertising on their screens, and then it solicits local merchants as clients to advertise their services or products on the motion picture screens. The advertisers pay a fee to appellant for the use of the appellant's commercial advertising product, which is a moving picture film with sound accompaniment.
In the production process appellant purchases color film and sends a camera crew to a designated location to take a thirty-second moving picture. The exposed film, together with a transcript containing a scenario of conversations designed to match the actions of the persons shown on the film, is sent to one of three processing laboratories located in either Colorado, California, or Illinois. The film is there processed and the transcript of the commercial message is voiced by staff announcers for recordation onto what are called optical tracts, which are sound recordings of the transcript. The processed film and the optical tract are returned to appellant for editing, cutting and matching, and they are then returned to the processing laboratory for development and preparation of the ultimate final print which will have a voice related to the picture showing the client's specific type of business or product. In describing the processing performed by the laboratories various terms are used. The terms "sound," "mix," and "record" refer to the act of recording a voice mixed with background music on tape which is later transferred to an optical tract. The term "transfer" refers to the act of transferring the message, as recorded on tape or record, onto an optical track. The term "blow-up" refers to the act of enlarging an optical track on 16mm film to 35mm film. After processing the prints are shipped to appellant, or at times directly to the theater designated by appellant. The number of prints ordered from the laboratory depends upon the number of theaters appellant is able to get to show the commercials. The period for which the commercial is shown by the theaters is generally governed by contract and is usually between six months and a year. The film is then discarded by the theater or is returned to appellant. It has no salvage value.
Respondent has filed in this court a motion to dismiss the appeal "for lack of subject matter jurisdiction." He contends that because the final decision of the Director of Revenue was rendered after August 13, 1978, the date on which S.B. 661, Laws of Mo. 1978 pp. 441-61 became effective, review of that decision was required to be performed by the Administrative Hearing Commission, and the circuit court had no jurisdiction of the review. Labrayere v. Goldberg, 605 S.W.2d 79 (Mo. banc 1980), is decisive of this contention, and the motion to dismiss the appeal is overruled.
Section 144.610 RSMo 1978 provides:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sneary v. Director of Revenue
...film, which consisted of colored dots, from the motion picture film found subject to the sales tax in Universal Images, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 608 S.W.2d 417 (Mo.1980). A motion picture, unlike the separated film, was a "final, finished product" which the buyer could use in the form......
-
James v. TRES Computer Service, Inc.
...349 So.2d 1160, 1162 (Ala.1977). The Director argues that the Hearing Commission's decision is contrary to Universal Images, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 608 S.W.2d 417 (Mo.1980) because there the Court held that motion picture film was taxable as tangible personal property at its transac......
-
Gammaitoni v. Director of Revenue
...fed directly into the computer via electronic communications, without using the tapes. Two years earlier, in Universal Images v. Department of Revenue, 608 S.W.2d 417 (Mo.1980), this Court had held filmed commercials, which Universal ordered to its specifications from an out-of-state labora......
-
K & A Litho Process, Inc. v. Director of Revenue
...of highly skilled and technical services. We distinguish here, as we did in TRES Computer, the case of Universal Images, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 608 S.W.2d 417 (Mo.1980). That case involved motion picture film, which was held to be tangible personal property. The tax there was correc......
-
Section 6 General Principles
...services into a sale of tangible personal property. The Court distinguished Universal Images, Inc. v. Missouri Department of Revenue, 608 S.W.2d 417 (Mo. 1980), in which it held that certain motion picture film was tangible personal property, observing that: “Here, the separation process an......
-
Section 7 Computer Software
...to the customer by electronic telecommunication. The Court distinguished Universal Images, Inc. v. Missouri Department of Revenue, 608 S.W.2d 417 (Mo. 1980), in which the Court held that motion picture film was tangible personal property. In distinguishing Universal, it adopted the rational......
-
Section 32 Film, Record, and Video Rentals
...works will characterize the resulting property as tangible personal property. Compare Universal Images, Inc. v. Mo. Dep’t of Revenue, 608 S.W.2d 417 (Mo. 1980) (motion picture film is tangible personal property), with James v. TRES Computer Sys., Inc., 642 S.W.2d 347 (Mo. banc 1982) (custom......