Val-Pak of Omaha, Inc. v. Department of Revenue of State of Neb.
| Decision Date | 05 April 1996 |
| Docket Number | VAL-PAK,No. S-94-428,S-94-428 |
| Citation | 545 N.W.2d 447,249 Neb. 776 |
| Parties | OF OMAHA, INC., Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OF the STATE OF NEBRASKA and Mucho Berri Balka, Tax Commissioner for the State of Nebraska, Appellees. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Administrative Law: Final Orders: Appeal and Error. A final order rendered by a district court in a judicial review pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act may be reversed, vacated, or modified by an appellate court for errors appearing on the record.
2. Administrative Law. Agency regulations that are properly adopted and filed with the Secretary of State have the effect of statutory law.
Appeal from the District Court for Lancaster County: Paul D. Merritt, Jr., Judge. Affirmed.
David A. Ludtke and Stanley J. Andersen, of Rembolt Ludtke Parker & Berger, Lincoln, for appellant.
Don Stenberg, Attorney General, and L. Jay Bartel, Lincoln, for appellees.
Val-Pak of Omaha, Inc. (Val-Pak), appeals the order of the Lancaster County District Court which affirmed the state Tax Commissioner's denial of Val-Pak's claim for a refund of Nebraska use tax.
A final order rendered by a district court in a judicial review pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act may be reversed, vacated, or modified by an appellate court for errors appearing on the record. See, Neb.Rev.Stat. § 84-918(3) (Reissue 1994); Lee v. Nebraska State Racing Comm., 245 Neb. 564, 513 N.W.2d 874 (1994).
Val-Pak is a Nebraska business licensed under an agreement with Val-Pak Direct Marketing Systems, Inc. (Direct Marketing), of Largo, Florida. Between 1987 and 1991, Val-Pak operated a direct-mail advertising business in Omaha, Nebraska, and surrounding areas in Nebraska and Iowa. Direct Marketing prints advertising material and delivers it to residents by mail. The agreement between Val-Pak and Direct Marketing provided that Val-Pak had the right to secure and arrange for the distribution of advertising material under the system provided by Direct Marketing within the territory specified in the agreement.
Direct Marketing agreed to "print and mail all material needed to complete [Val-Pak's] distribution." Val-Pak agreed to "pay [Direct Marketing's] prevailing rates for all work ordered." Direct Marketing billed Val-Pak for the cost of producing, printing, and distributing advertising material in Nebraska.
Val-Pak entered into "participation agreements" with local businesses for the preparation and distribution by mail of advertising materials within a designated area. Under these participation agreements, Val-Pak agreed to provide assistance in planning and preparing draft copies and proofs of the proposed advertising. Val-Pak also agreed to arrange the printing of the advertising materials, their insertion into envelopes, and their distribution through the mail.
Val-Pak's employees secured customers' participation in direct-mail advertising and prepared the preliminary advertising material for submission to Direct Marketing. When the preliminary advertising material The final proof was returned to Direct Marketing for production and distribution. Direct Marketing purchased the printing materials, published the advertisement, purchased the envelopes, stuffed the envelopes with the printed materials, paid the postage, and mailed the materials to residents in an area designated by Val-Pak. Val-Pak never took physical possession of the materials distributed by Direct Marketing. Direct Marketing was then paid by Val-Pak pursuant to the licensing agreement between Val-Pak and Direct Marketing.
was completed and approved by a customer, it was forwarded to Direct Marketing, which prepared a proof copy for review by the customer. The returned proof copy was reviewed by the customer for accuracy. Pursuant to the participation agreement, the customer then paid Val-Pak for its services.
The Tax Commissioner issued a notice of deficiency determination and assessment against Val-Pak for use tax due for the period of 1987 through 1991, in the amount of $12,180.80. The assessment was based upon Val-Pak's failure to remit use tax on its purchase and use of tangible personal property provided by Direct Marketing and distributed in Nebraska pursuant to Val-Pak's specifications. Val-Pak paid the assessment and subsequently filed a claim for refund on September 22, 1992, and an amended claim for refund on September 25. The Tax Commissioner denied Val-Pak's original and amended refund claims in a letter dated December 15.
Val-Pak makes three assignments of error: The district court erred (1) in determining that the regulations of the Nebraska Department of Revenue do not exempt Val-Pak's activities from Nebraska use tax, (2) in determining that Val-Pak used or consumed tangible personal property in the State of Nebraska, and (3) in affirming the Tax Commissioner's decision and failing to grant Val-Pak's request for relief.
The decisive issue on appeal is whether the district court erred in finding that Val-Pak's purchase and use of advertising materials distributed in Nebraska constituted a use of tangible personal property subject to Nebraska's use tax.
We first set forth the applicable statutes in effect at the time Val-Pak's claim for refund was filed. Neb.Rev.Stat. § 77-2703 (Cum.Supp.1992) provided:
(1) There is hereby imposed a tax ... upon the gross receipts from all sales of tangible personal property sold at retail in this state....
....
(2) A use tax is hereby imposed on the storage, use, or other consumption in this state of tangible personal property purchased, leased, or rented from any retailer and on any transaction the gross receipts of which are subject to tax under subsection (1) of this section on or after June 1, 1967, for storage, use, or other consumption in this state at the rate set as provided in subsection (1) of this section on the sales price of the property or, in the case of leases or rentals, of the lease or rental prices.
"Use" was defined as "the exercise of any right or power over tangible personal property incident to the ownership or possession of that tangible personal property...." Neb.Rev.Stat. § 77-2702.23 (Cum.Supp.1992). "Tangible personal property" was defined as "personal property which may be seen, weighed, measured, felt, or touched or which is in any other manner perceptible to the senses...." Neb.Rev.Stat. § 77-2702.20 (Cum.Supp.1994). A "retailer" was defined as "[a]ny seller engaged in the business of making sales of tangible personal property for ... use, or other consumption...." Neb.Rev.Stat. § 77-2702.14(1) (Cum.Supp.1992). Section 77-2703(2)(f) provided: "It shall be further presumed ... that tangible personal property shipped or brought to this state by the purchaser after June 1, 1967, was purchased from a retailer on or after that date for ... use, or other consumption in this state."
The district court found that Val-Pak's control over the preparation and distribution of the direct-mail advertising materials constituted the exercise of a right or power over tangible personal property and, therefore, involved a taxable use as defined in § 77-2702.23. The district court relied upon Comfortably Yours, Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxation, 12 N.J.Tax 570 (1992), aff'd 272 N.J.Super. 540, 640 A.2d 862 (1994). In that case, the New Jersey Tax Court held that the taxpayer's control over distribution of the catalogs was an "economic utilization" of the catalogs and, therefore, qualified as a "use" under New Jersey law.
Val-Pak argues that § 77-2703(2) did not provide for a use tax to be imposed when the property was "economically utilized" in this state. Val-Pak asserts that the tax is imposed when the property is used in this state, as use is defined by § 77-2702.23, and that since Val-Pak does not have any conceivable right or power over the advertising fliers after they are delivered to a post office in Florida, a use tax should not be imposed upon Val-Pak.
Val-Pak refers us to other jurisdictions which have determined that there is no "use" of materials for purposes of imposing a use tax when catalogs are printed outside of the jurisdiction and distributed by common carriers to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Richard v. Wash. Dep't of Revenue
...A tax refund claim for Val–Pak Envelopes was also denied in Nebraska under a state use tax. See Val–Pak of Omaha, Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue, 249 Neb. 776, 782–83, 545 N.W.2d 447, 448–50 (1996); but see Val–Pak of Cent. Conn. N., Inc. v. Comm'r, 235 Conn. 737, 669 A.2d 1211 (1996), aff'g 44 C......
-
Wolgamott v. Abramson
...of Appeals for errors appearing on the record. Rainbolt v. State, 250 Neb. 567, 550 N.W.2d 341 (1996); Val-Pak of Omaha v. Department of Revenue, 249 Neb. 776, 545 N.W.2d 447 (1996). With respect to questions of law, an appellate court has an obligation to reach a conclusion independent of ......
-
Schmidt v. State
...have the effect of statutory law. Alexander v. Warehouse, 253 Neb. 153, 568 N.W.2d 892 (1997); Val-Pak of Omaha v. Department of Revenue, 249 Neb. 776, 545 N.W.2d 447 (1996). Regulations bind the agency that promulgated them just as they bind individual citizens, even if the adoption of the......
-
Alexander v. J.D. Warehouse, S-95-1295
...properly adopted and filed with the Secretary of State of Nebraska, have the effect of statutory law. Val-Pak of Omaha v. Department of Revenue, 249 Neb. 776, 545 N.W.2d 447 (1996); Omaha Pub. Power Dist. v. Nebraska Dept. of Revenue, 248 Neb. 518, 537 N.W.2d 312 (1995); Sunrise Country Man......