Administrative Hearing Commission
Richard Maseles, Esquire
Missouri resident who bought boat, motor, and trailer out of state was not obligated to pay local use taxes on purchase, because his county of residence had not enacted a local use tax. Street v. Director of Revenue, No. 91371 (Mo. banc, January 31, 2012), Breckenridge, J.
In cause no. 09-1234 RV, the commission decided that Street was not entitled to a refund of local taxes paid on a boat, motor, and trailer he bought out of state because Greene County had not enacted a local use tax; it was not entitled to collect taxes on Street’s transaction. It did not matter that the motor vehicle use tax was found within the statutes referred to as “the Sales Tax law” the legislature’s intent was to allow imposition of local use tax only by local election. (See also summary in Taxation Law).
Residential cooperative association not entitled to refund of sales taxes paid for utilities provided to common areas, because it failed to establish that utilities were only used by residents and only for a domestic purpose. 801 Skinker Blvd. Corp., et al. v. Director of Revenue, No. 09-0974 RS (Mo. A.H.C., Feb. 7, 2012), Chapel, C.
Skinker owned an apartment building and operated it as a residential cooperative. Its owners owned shares in the corporation and a right to occupy a particular apartment and use the common areas. Skinker paid for the utilities provided to the common areas and sought a refund along with the utilities.
DECISION: The refund request was denied. Petitioners were not entitled to an exemption under § 144.030.2(23) (b), because the utilities were not provided to the building by a single or master meter and the sales of utilities were classed as nonresidential. Petitioners were also not entitled to a refund under the definition of “domestic use” in § 144.030.2(23)(a), because they failed to establish that the common areas were used for nothing but residential use, and did not try to establish what portion of the utilities were used by individual occupants. This was one of six cases brought by other condominium and homeowners’ associations that were based on similar facts and arguments.