The Administrative Hearing Commission denied a tax exemption to Branson Properties USA (“BPU”). Because the petition for review involves construction of the revenue laws, this Court has exclusive appellate jurisdiction. Mo. Const art. V, sec. 3. Affirmed.
I.
BPU substantially upgraded an amusement park with 30 rides — including a roller coaster, carousel, go-carts, bumper-cars, and Ferris wheel. BPU purchased these rides for $2,010,852.22. BPU replaced various parts on the rides for $53,810.96.
Customers do not pay an admission fee to enter the park, but buy tickets per-ride, or a “superpass” for all rides. BPU collects sales tax on tickets and passes. See sections lU-010.1(10)(a), 1U-020.1(2) RSMo 2000. 1
The Director audited BPU, assessing $1,717.30 in sales tax, and $95,800.79 in use tax on its purchase of the rides and parts. See section 1¼. 610.1
BPU claims a “manufacturing” or “producing” exemption. Subdivisions 144.030.2(4) and (5) exempt from sales and use tax:
(4) Replacement machinery, equipment, and parts ... used directly in manufacturing, mining, fabricating or producing a product which is intended to be sold ultimately for final use or consumption ....
(5) Machinery and equipment, and parts and the materials and supplies solely required for the installation or construction of such machinery and equipment, purchased and used to establish new or to expand existing manufacturing, mining or fabricating plants in the state if such machinery and equipment is used directly in manufacturing, mining or fabricating a product which is intended to be sold ultimately for final use or consumption[.]
The AHC ruled for the Director. The AHC’s interpretation of revenue laws is reviewed de novo, and upheld when authorized by law and supported by competent and substantial evidence upon the whole record.
Section 621.193;
see
Ovid Bell Press, Inc. v. Director of Revenue,
BPU has the burden to show it qualifies for an exemption.
UtiliCorp United, Inc. v. Director of Revenue,
II.
The sole issue is whether BPU engages in “manufacturing” or “producing.” “Manufacturing” is “the alteration or physical change of an object or material in such a way that produces an article with a use, identity, and value different from the use, identity, and value of the original.”
Ga-lamet, Inc. v. Director of Revenue,
The activities in subdivisions 144.030.2(4) and (5)—manufacturing, mining, fabricating, and producing—all transform an input into an output with a separate and distinct use, identity, or value. See
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Director of Revenue,
Over the last 30 years, this Court has determined that certain acts are not transformations within the meaning of subdivisions (4) and (5), because the output does not have a separate and distinct use, identity, or value:
Retreading or recapping tires. See State ex reí AMF Inc. v. Spradling,518 S.W.2d 58 , 61-62 (Mo.1974).
Cleaning and repairing uniforms. See Unitog Rental Services v. Director of Revenue,779 S.W.2d 568 , 570-71 (Mo. banc 1989).
Cleaning and inspecting eggs. See L & R Egg Co. v. Director of Revenue,796 S.W.2d at 626-27 ; see also Rotary Drilling Supply,662 S.W.2d at 500 (drilling test holes to search for minerals is not transformation, but only exploration). Repackaging products. See House of Lloyd,824 S.W.2d at 919 .
Transmitting or distributing electricity. See UtiliCorp United,75 S.W.3d at 729 .
Conversely, the required transformation does occur where the output has a separate and distinct use, identity, or value:
Grinding, crushing, and sorting rock into various sizes for commercial use. See West Lake Quarry & Material Co. v. Schqffner,451 S.W.2d 140 , 143 (Mo. 1970).
Commercial printing. See Heidelberg Central, Inc. v. Director of Dept, of Revenue,476 S.W.2d 502 , 506 (Mo.1972); see also Ovid Bell Press,45 S.W.3d at 884 .
Slaughtering livestock to create marketable food. See Wilson & Co., Inc. v. Department of Revenue,531 S.W.2d 752 , 754-55 (Mo.1976); see also Sipco,875 S.W.2d at 542 .
Treating and purifying water. See Jackson Excavating,646 S.W.2d at 51 . Converting old automobiles/appliances into steel shreds for commercial use. See Galamet,915 S.W.2d at 333-34 . Manipulating and affixing words onto a page to create a newspaper. Concord Pub. House, Inc. v. Director of Revenue,916 S.W.2d 186 , 190 (Mo. banc 1996).
BPU argues that it “manufactures” or “produces” an intangible product or service subject to sales tax. BPU notes that the General Assembly codified this Court’s holdings that subdivisions 144.030.2(4) and (5) include intangible products and services
*827
subject to sales or use tax.
1998 Mo. Laws 1669,
codified as
section 111.010(H);
see
International Business Machines v. Director of Revenue,
BPU claims that its rides — acting on the inputs of electricity, water, operators, lights, designs, performers, atmosphere, aesthetics, and safety equipment — create a separate and distinct output — entertainment including thrills, sensations, excitement, amusement, and “fun” for its customers. BPU summarizes: “The combination of the mechanical rides, power, operators and other intangible aesthetics creates a change in the mood, emotion or other sensory perceptions of customers to create the entertainment experience and products.”
BPU relies on the
Southwestern Bell
case. There, telephone services were intangible products, subject to sales tax.
Southwestern Bell,
Thus, even when the product is intangible, there still must be a clear and identifiable transformation of an input into an output with a separate and distinct use, identity, or value. Here, there is no such transformation. The inputs are not significantly changed. The outputs of the system are
not
clearly and identifiably different from what went into it. See
Bridge Data,
BPU does not engage in “manufacturing” or “producing” that qualifies for an exemption under subdivisions 144.030.2(4) and (5).
III.
The decision of the AHC is affirmed.
Notes
. All statutory references are to RSMo 2000.