Mo. Code Regs. Ann. tit. 12, § 10-110.920
PURPOSE: Sections 144.030.2(1), (22), and (32), RSMo, exempt the sales of certain grains, seed, pesticides, limestone, fertilizer and herbicides. This rule explains the requirements that must be met in order to qualify for these exemptions. Section 144.020.1(3), RSMo, taxes certain utility services. This rule explains the application of this taxing provision for sales to agricultural consumers. (1) In general, the sale of grains to be converted into foodstuffs or seed, and limestone, fertilizer, and herbicides used in connection with the growth or production of crops, livestock or poultry is exempt from tax.
(2) Definition of Terms.
(3) Basic Application of Tax.
(4) Examples.
AUTHORITY: section 144.270, RSMo 1994.* Original rule filed Jan. 3, 2000, effective July 30, 2000. *Original authority: 144.270, RSMo 1939, amended 1941, 1943, 1945, 1947, 1955, 1961. Conagra Poultry Co. v. Director of Revenue, 862 S.W.2d 915 (Mo. banc 1993). Wood shavings were sold by the taxpayer, a turkey processor, to its contractors as part of the contractors’ compensation for raising the turkeys. The contractors expected to use as fertilizer all the litter that the turkey-raising operation would produce in their own farming. The court ruled that at the time the wood shavings passed to the contractors, the wood shavings had no value as fertilizer. The wood shaving become fertilizer upon absorbing nutrients in the turkey droppings. The wood shavings were not exempt as materials used in processing because even though the wood shavings became a component part of the fertilizer, the contractors used the fertilizer for their own farming and did not sell any products for final use or consumption. Norwin G. Heimos Greenhouse, Inc. v. Director of Revenue, 724 S.W.2d 505 (Mo. banc 1987). Gas, water and electricity were used for the operation of greenhouses. A refund was requested on tax paid on utilities used in the greenhouse’s production of flower and vegetable plants for sale to retailers. The court found that the greenhouse’s use of utilities constituted agricultural consumption and was not subject to sales tax under Section 144.020.1(3), RSMo. The legislatures distinguished between agricultural and commercial in the property tax statutes and the Employment Security Law. The court concluded that the legislature also intended that agricultural consumers be considered as a class separate from commercial consumers for sales tax purposes.