Mo. Code Regs. Ann. tit. 12, § 10-103.220
PURPOSE: This rule interprets the resale exemption in section 144.615(6), RSMo, and the resale exclusion in section 144.010.1(9), RSMo.
(2) Definition of Terms.
(3) Basic Application of Tax.
(4) Examples.
AUTHORITY: sections 144.010(9) and 144.615(6), RSMo Supp. 2004 and 144.150, 144.270 and 144.705, RSMo 2000.* Original rule filed Sept. 27, 2000, effective March 30, 2001. Amended: Filed Aug. 26, 2005, effective Feb. 28, 2006. *Original authority: 144.010, RSMo 1939, amended 1941, 1943, 1945, 1947, 1974, 1975, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1981, 1985, 1988, 1993, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2001; 144.150, RSMo 1939, 1941, 1943, 1945, 1961, 1987, 1990, 1994; 144.270, RSMo 1939, amended 1941, 1943, 1947, 1955, 1961; 144.615, RSMo 1959, amended 1961, 1985, 1986, 2003, 2004; and 144.705, RSMo 1959. Kansas City Power & Light Co. v. Director of Revenue, 83 S.W.3d 548 (Mo. banc 2002). The taxpayer claimed a resale exemption for electricity purchased by hotels for use in guest rooms. The Court held that the hotels transferred the right to control the electricity when the guest was able to adjust the temperature. The guests pay consideration for that right when they pay for the hotel room because the cost of the electricity is “factored into” the cost of the room. Therefore, the sales of electricity to the hotels for use in the guest rooms were not subject to tax. The Court also affirmed the Administrative Hearing Commission’s calculation of the refund due based on a square footage analysis as “the best method available on the record before it.” The Court recognized, however, that there were substantial questions regarding whether such a measure would withstand scrutiny on a more complete record “in a future case.” Kansas City Royals Baseball Corp. v. Director of Revenue, 32 S.W.3d 560 (Mo. banc 2000). The taxpayer claimed a resale exemption for promotional items distributed to its paying customers at its baseball games. The promotional items were also given away to attendees who had complimentary tickets and if items were left after a game, people received them without paying any admission at all. The Court found that consideration was paid for the promotional items because the cost of the items was “factored into” the price of the tickets to see the game. The Court stated: “there is a direct connection between the ticket price charged the paid attendees who received the promotional items and the promotional items themselves.” Westwood Country Club v. Director of Revenue, 6 S.W.3d 885 (Mo. banc 1999), determined that meals and beverages served by Westwood, a private club not open to the public, were not sales at retail. Westwood could not claim a resale exemption on its purchases of food and beverages. The Court also found that Westwood did not owe sales tax on fees that it charged for use of its golf carts because it paid sales tax on its purchases of the golf carts. Aladdin’s Castle, Inc. v. Director of Revenue, 916 S.W.2d 196 (Mo. banc 1996), dealt with the taxation of prizes awarded to customers playing arcade games. Aladdin collected and remitted sales tax on tokens purchased by customers to play the arcade games. Aladdin purchased the prizes for resale and did not pay a tax. The Court found that Aladdin met the three factors set forth in Sipco, Inc. v. Director of Revenue and did not have to show that the cost of the prizes was specifically factored into the price of the sale of tokens to each customer to take advantage of the resale exemption. In Sipco, Inc. v. Director of Revenue, 875 S.W.2d 539 (Mo. banc 1994), the issue was whether dry ice used to package fresh pork products for transport to customers was exempt as a purchase for resale. The court held that the seller need not show the cost is specifically factored into the price of the goods in order to claim a resale exemption. The Court stated that “one need not be an accountant to understand that the value of the dry ice was factored into the total consideration paid for the pork.” In Spudich v. Director of Revenue, 745 S.W.2d 677 (Mo. banc 1988), a taxpayer purchased billiard tables for display and possible resale. The Supreme Court held that the exemption for resale was available only for items purchased solely for resale. The billiard tables in question were purchased primarily as display items to solicit orders. Any resale of the tables was incidental to their primary purpose. Resale only occurred if that particular table was the last of its kind in inventory or a customer wanted that specific table. The Court held the taxpayer’s purchases subject to use tax. R & M Enterprises v. Director of Revenue, 748 S.W.2d 171 (Mo. banc 1988), dealt with the taxation of samples. The Court noted that there was no quantitative connection between the furnishing of sample books to retailers and the purchase of fabric by retailers for their customers. Therefore, R & M was required to pay sales/use tax on their purchases of sample books.