AUTHORITY: section 94.530, RSMo 1986. C.S.T. Regulation 540-5 originally filed Oct. 28, 1975, effective Nov. 7, 1975. Rescinded: Filed Dec. 15, 2004, effective June 30, 2005. Fabick and Co. v. Schaffner, 492 SW2d 737 (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. See also Mobil-Teria Catering Co., Inc. v. Spradling, 576 SW2d 282 (Mo. en banc 1978). For purposes of public mass transportation tax and transportation sales, “place of business” of mobile food service business referred to place where trucks were parked, wares displayed, initial orders taken and filed, payments made and sales consummated. Thus, the public mass transportation tax or transportation sales tax could not be imposed by municipal corporation on gross receipts from places of business outside the geographical limits of the city of municipality. Due to similarity with rule, see also section 94.540.5., RSMo.