Eighty Hundred Clayton Corp. v. Director of Revenue
111 S.W.3d 409
Mo.
2003
Check Treatment

*1 III. this action is

Having determined that

moot, Judg- the circuit court’s “Order

ment” vacated. JJ.,

BENTON, PRICE, STITH AND RUSSELL, CALLAHAN, SHAW аnd JJ.,

Sp. concur.

WHITE, WOLFF RICHARD

TEITELMAN, JJ., participating. ‍‌​​​​​​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‍Nixon, (Jay) Attorney Gen-

Jeremiah W. Buehheim, eral, Evan J. Assistant Attor- General, City, ney appellant. Jefferson Puricelli, Marusie, Jr., Paul Branko J. J. EIGHTY HUNDRED COR- CLAYTON Louis, respondent. St. PORATION, Tropicana d/b/a Lanes, Respondent, WOLFF, Judge. MICHAEL A. Tropicana Lanes entitled to a refund Is of sales tax it collected on fees REVENUE, Appellant. DIRECTOR OF shoes? customers for the use of No. SC 84956. This Missouri,

Supreme Court of (Mo. banc Spradling, 551 S.W.2d 596 En Banc. 144.020.1(2),Tropi- Under cana is not entitled to a refund. Fees July 2003. for the use of bowl- charged ‍‌​​​​​​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‍to customers Rehearing Aug. Denied 2003. ing shoes are taxable. Facts Lanes is a center Missouri, County,

St. Louis and it derives variety from a of activities.1 Tro- revenue does not an admission fee to picana premises, but does enter each a custom- “bowling game fee” for er bowls. Customers during per game period. sales, pinball 1. also derives revenue from a bar and commissions operates, pro and restaurant it as well as from chines. sales, shop pool receipts, vending machine *2 receipts “on that all bowlers wear derived bowling may bring paid shoes. Customers charges participating from fees or or, separate use their own shoes for a fee bowling provided from the use shoes Id., bowling establishments.” at 597. The by Tropicana. for use of Tro- Court held the all such is labeled picana’s bowling shoes as “Shoe in a charges fees and price Rental” on the board behind the In ment for activities. the paid cashier’s cоunter and must be when since Blue the shoes are obtained. The “shoe rental” tax, only changed the rate not the time, fee a one flat that does not governing language. There is no reason to on the vary based amount activ- ‍‌​​​​​​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‍interpreta- deviate from the Court’s earlier participates. ities which a customer Bally’s Family LeMan’s tion. Seе are allowed to wear the shoes Customers Centers, Revenue, Fun Inc. v. Director of throughout premises Tropicana, but (Mo. 683, banc they required are to return the shoes be- Moreover, plainly leaving. fore (1) imposed: tax to provides for sales during The shoe fee on for admissions to sums period. Tropicana refund received shoe (2) аmusement, etc.; on amounts averaged approximately per- fees that 11.5 (3) therein; seating accommodations ap- cent of its to, or in on all fees of amusе re- proximately percent seven of its total ment, etc. L & R Distrib. Co. v. Missouri ceipts. (Mo. Revenue, Dep’t 648 S.W.2d Tropicana paid, on the 1983). Thus, 144.020.1(2),all bought shoes at the time or to a of amusement are the shoes for the use of its customers. strictly if fee even timely filed a claim amusement activities. seeking refund of sales tax on the shoe Tropicаna argues that this Court’s hold- $23,888.65, rental fees the amount of Parks, ings Flags Theme Inc. v. Six re which was the sales tax Revenue, Director 102 S.W.3d ceipts fee the refund from the shoe 2003); Club v. denied pеriod. The director of revenue Revenue, Director 6 S.W.3d 885 Tropicana’s refund claim. The Adminis 1999); Hills and ‍‌​​​​​​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‍Greenbriar Hearing held that Tro trative Commission 47 S.W.3d 346 Club to a refund of sales tax picana is entitled 2001), support proposition jurisdic on its shoe fees. This Court has in a charges that not all amounts or V, appeal. tion of the Mo. Const. art. Tropica- amusemеnt are to tax. section 3. meaningful way argues na that there is no Bowling Fees for use shoes distinguish 144.020.1(2) imposes Section “a tax carts in from the rentals of percent of the equivаlent to four amount Flags. games and of video Six accommo to overrule dations, The director asks not nec- recreation, progeny. and its events; essary that issue bеcause Blue pre ...” The to address games and athletic Spradling Bowl controls Spra cise issue in Blue bowling alley dling, 551 S.W.2d was whether LIMBAUGH, J., in separate owners of a sales dissents рrotested filed; gross receipts tax on from fees or derived B. PRICE and RICHARD This Court that fees commer- TEITELMAN, JJ., in opinion concur *3 partic- cial establishments LIMBAUGH, J.

ipation in bowling are , LIMBAUGH, STEPHEN N. JR. places clearly such fall within one or more Judge, dissenting. “amusement, of the categories ‍‌​​​​​​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‍of of I respectfully dissent. in recreation” mentioned 144.020.1(2). Springs See Blue majority holds that under the doc- Bowl, Furthermore, 551 S.W.2d at 598. decisis, Tropicana trine of stare Lane’s tax this Court held section was the rental or lease of liability clear in unambiguous imposition shoes is this Court’s decision a tax receipts paid for admissions in Springs Spradling, Blue Bowl v. 551 amusement, entertainment, to or 1977). S.W.2d 596 I would hold recreation, receipts from amounts doctrine, very that under this same seating in plаces, accommodations such tax Tropieana’s liability gov- to or in erned, instead, this Court’s decision places. Id. at 599.2 Country Club v. Director of Revenue, 6 S.W.3d Springs As in Blue Tropicаna op- In Blue this Court erates a fees or ment, which recognized by has been this activity place as a of amusement. Within subject establishments are to amusement, place this 144.020.1(2), a charges its customers a fee to use on “amounts shoes, in order to participate activity accommodations, seating or This fee type is the of feе this amusement, any place entertainment Court has held was intended to be recreation, games and athletic events.” to the amusement tax under 144.020.1(2). Relying holding, Sec. on this 144.020.1(2).3 majority that Tropicana concludes The commission’s decision is reversed. Lanes is not entitled to a refund of sales tax it collected custom- WHITE, C.J., STITH, shoes, BENTON and ers for the use оf as these JJ., concur; place fees are “in or to a of amuse- overruled, lightly 2. This Court in Blue particularly Bowl said that not be things already "in addition to those taxed in unchangеd has remained etc., amusement, connection with many clearly and is not erroneous and namely, ‘admission and accommoda- manifestly wrong. See Southwestern Bell Yel- tiоns’, imposed the sales tax on such Pages, low Inc. other fees as are to or in said establish- 2002). Moreover, simple general language ments. That interpretation, on a matter of it is qualified any way. limited or significant that the has amended all such fees to or in such establish- statute, by changing rate in this case ments.” S.W.2d at 599. percent, altering from three to four without language describing to be 3. This Court has held under the doctrine taxed. decisis, of stare a decision of this Court should sure, To be Club. overly ing Country sim- ment.” But this conclusion is Bowl can Bowl did to thе extent that Blue plistic, because under subsec- precise presented liability address the issue creating be read as Here, contrast, we are asked within a tion for all fees determine whether the rental or lease charged for including those equipment utilized of amusement personal the rental or lease of is taxable under subseсtion 8 of section longer good is no law. issue ad- 144.020.1. This was the exact reasons, the doctrine For these Club. dressed Westwood require decisis does not on the rental liability for fеes *4 conflict between potential examined ironical- In fact—and shoes. 144.020.1, 2 and 8 of section subsections this doctrine ly—adherence and determined that subsection The doctrine just opposite. the rental or lease imposes a sales “laid that, a court has once decisis directs unless sales tangible personal propеrty to a applicable of law principle down a renter or seller on

taxes were facts, adhere [must] certain state of original property, purchasе it to all future apply principle, 2 “in that it specific more than subsection substantially the cases, facts are rental of expressly deals with the lease of same; рarties whether regardless of tax' upon which sales personal property property are the same.” Black’s Law already paid.” 6 at 889. been ed.1990). (6th princi- DictiоnaRY In accordance with the rules of County ple of law announced construction, applied then sub- is, applica- equally question, Club without controversy ultimately seсtion 8 to the ble to the at hand. case Westwood had concluded because purchases of its original sales tax on the the decision I affirm Accordingly, would carts, for sales tax on golf it was not liable Hearing Commission of the Administrative usage. Id. charged the fees for their this Court’s and hold under Lanes depart I no reason to from this see of salеs is entitled to refund Lanes, which likewise analysis. Tropicana for the use customers original sales tax on the tois hold otherwise To shoes. liable for its rental should be princiрle obey, than ignore, rather merely 144.020.1 sales tax under section stare decisis. of a proprietor it is the no simply princi- There is establishment. the rental of

pled distinction between the rental of country

carts from a club and

bowling shoes from a Nevertheless, relying on

establishment. and this

the doctrine of stare decisis Bowl, the in Blue meaningful dis-

majority finds this lack of But a distinc- meaningless.

tinction absence, necessary, for

tion is by the interpreted Bowl—as the hold-

jority reconciled with —cannot