PURPOSE: This rule aids in the determination of when city sales tax applies and interprets and applies section 94.540.5., RSMo (1986).

1. (1) For the purposes of the city sales tax law, all retail sales are conclusively presumed to have been consummated at the place of business of the seller/retailer without regard to the location or point of passage of title. The privilege of engaging in the business of selling tangible personal property or rendering taxable services within taxing cities subject the seller to the city sales tax law.
2. (2) The sale is subject to city sales tax when a seller makes a taxable sale to a purchaser at the seller’s place of business or when the order is taken by mail, telephone or by a salesman, even though the property is to be delivered from the seller’s place of business located within such taxing jurisdiction to the customer at a point in Missouri outside the limits of the taxing jurisdiction. The sale is consummated at the seller’s location, not at the point of delivery.
3. (3) Example. Mr. Mars is a customer of the Orange Company, a Missouri seller located in Sun City, a local taxing jurisdiction. Mr. Mars orders merchandise from Orange Company for delivery to his place of business outside the corporate city limits of Sun City. Orange Company delivers the merchandise from the stock of goods on hand to Mr. Mars. Orange Company is subject to Sun City’s city sales tax on the merchandise sold to Mr. Mars.
4. (4) Example. The Mighty Milk Company is located in Sun City, a local taxing jurisdiction. Mighty Milk has route salesmen and independent salesmen who sell milk in Sun City and in neighboring cities. Some of the neighboring cities have their own local tax and some do not. All sales of Mighty Milk’s route salesmen and the independent salesmen are subject to Sun City’s city sales tax since the sales are considered to be consummated at the place of business from which the salesman works.

AUTHORITY: section 94.530, RSMo 1986. C.S.T. regulation 540-4 originally filed Oct. 28, 1975, effective Nov. 7, 1975. Refiled Dec. 31, 1975, effective Jan. 10, 1976. Fabick and Co. v. Schaffner, 492 SW2d 737 (Mo. 1973). Jurisdictional arguments based upon lack of reciprocal benefit under city tax law are unavailing because the retailer is within the city imposing the tax and is the recipient of governmental services provided by the city. The contention that only a rebuttable presumption was intended by the phrase “shall be deemed to be consummated at the place of business of the retailer” was rejected. The obvious purpose of the premium was to fix the taxable situs of transactions which might have a nexus with more than one municipality. City sales tax of Jefferson City, like the state sales tax, is a gross receipts tax, not a transactions tax. Due to similarity with rule, see also section 94.540.5., RSMo.