St. Louis Rams LLC v. Director of Revenue, 526 S.W.3d 124

The St. Louis Rams collected a city "entertainment license tax" (ELT) from ticket buyers and remitted it to St. Louis while selling game admission tickets from Feb. 1, 2007 through Jan. 31, 2013.
For Feb. 1, 2007–Jan. 31, 2010 the Rams included the ELT in their state sales tax base and later sought a refund alleging it was erroneously included; director denied refund and Rams petitioned the Administrative Hearing Commission (the Commission).
For Feb. 1, 2010–Jan. 31, 2013 the Rams omitted the ELT from their state sales tax base; the director assessed additional sales tax and interest, and the Rams petitioned to challenge that assessment.
The parties stipulated the Rams remitted state and local sales taxes and amounts due for the ELT on admission charges; the Commission consolidated the matters and granted summary decision to the Rams.
The Commission treated the ELT as an occupational/license tax and concluded taxing the ELT would be a tax on a tax, ordering refunds and nullifying assessments; the director appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court.

Issue	Rams' Argument	Director's Argument	Held
Whether the ELT collected from ticket buyers is included in the taxable "amount paid for admission" under Mo. sales tax law	ELT is not part of taxable admission; it is a separate levy like a cigarette tax or a pass-through and thus excluded from sales tax base	ELT is included in the fixed admission price paid by purchasers and therefore part of the gross receipts taxable as the "amount paid for admission"	ELT is part of the amount received for admission and subject to sales tax; Commission reversed
Whether treating the ELT as taxable would unlawfully create a tax-on-a-tax analogous to Moore Leasing or other precedents	Inclusion would tax a tax; seller is merely passing through the city tax and should be excluded from gross receipts	Rams structured collection to include ELT in a fixed admission price; unlike Moore/ITT, seller bears obligation and received the full amount for its benefit	Court distinguished Moore and ITT Canteen and rejected tax-on-tax/agent characterization

Krispy Kreme Doughnut Corp. v. Dir. of Revenue, 488 S.W.3d 62 (Mo. banc 2016) (statutory interpretation and review standards)
Central Hardware Co., Inc. v. Dir. of Revenue, 887 S.W.2d 593 (Mo. banc 1994) (sales tax is a gross receipts tax imposed on the seller)
Eighty Hundred Clayton Corp. v. Dir. of Revenue, 111 S.W.3d 409 (Mo. banc 2003) (sales tax on admissions)
Moore Leasing, Inc. v. Director of Revenue, 869 S.W.2d 760 (Mo. banc 1994) (holding sales tax should not be imposed on lessees' personal property tax routed through lessor — analyzed tax-on-tax and statutory construction)
ITT Canteen Corp. v. Spradling, 526 S.W.2d 11 (Mo. 1975) (seller acting as agent for a statutorily characterized consumer tax need not include that tax in sales tax base)
Fred Weber, Inc. v. Dir. of Revenue, 452 S.W.3d 628 (Mo. banc 2015) (statutory interpretation should be reasonable and give effect to legislative intent)