Mo. Code Regs. Ann. tit. 12, § 10-103.700
PURPOSE: Section 144.010.1(10), RSMo excludes from tax, purchases that are intended to be resold as tangible personal property. Section 144.030.2(2), RSMo exempts materials that become a component part of new personal property. Section 144.011.1(10), RSMo excludes from tax certain items of a nonreusable nature purchased by eating or food service establishments. This rule explains when purchases of packaging and shipping materials are not subject to tax. (1) In general, purchases of packaging and shipping materials included with, or used to deliver, a product for ultimate sale at retail are not subject to tax. Purchases of nonreusable items by eating or food service establishments are not subject to tax.
(2) Definition of Terms.
(3) Basic Application of Tax.
(A) The purchase of packaging and shipping materials are taxable if:
house” by the seller and is not subsequently transferred to a purchaser;
turned to the seller and the customer does not acquire title to, ownership of or the right to use the packaging material;
tal to the rendering of a non-taxable service, such as with the sale of custom software or color separations; or
that are being transferred as gifts or free samples.
(4) Examples.
AUTHORITY: section 144.270, RSMo 1994.* Original rule filed Aug. 21, 2000, effective March 30, 2001. *Original authority: 144.270, RSMo 1939, amended 1941, 1943, 1947, 1955, 1961. Brambles Industries, Inc. v. Director of Revenue, 981 S.W.2d 568 (Mo. banc 1998), the Court held that leases of packaging material are excluded from sales tax when the packaging material is leased for the purpose of transferring the right to use the packaging material to a subsequent purchaser for valuable consideration. House of Lloyd v. Director of Revenue, 884 S.W.2d 271 (Mo. banc 1994) (House of Lloyd II), House of Lloyd (HOL) sold merchandise, such as Christmas gifts, through a hostess program. At issue was the packaging containing the individual boxes that were used to deliver the goods from HOL to its hostesses. DOR argued that HOL was the user and consumer of this packaging. The Court held that the incidental benefit received by the seller did not violate the resale claim of exemption. Sipco, Inc. v. Director of Revenue, 875 S.W.2d 539 (Mo. banc 1994), the purchase of dry ice that was used to package fresh pork products and to transport the products to customers was exempt from tax as a purchase for resale.