Administrative Hearing Commission

Editor:
Richard Maseles, Esquire

Contents of Medicaid provider’s deferred prosecution agreement admissible to support termination of provider agreement, even though owner claimed ignorance of filing false claims, and agreement may have been entered under duress. Home Harvest Care, LLC v. Department of Social Services, No. 11-1215 SP (Mo. AHC, November 20, 2012), Nelson, C.

Home Harvest and its owner entered into a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) with the Missouri Attorney General, in which it admitted it filed false Medicaid claims based on forged time sheets. Then, DSS terminated Home Harvest’s Title XIX Medicaid provider agreement, based largely on the admissions of the DPA, and Home Harvest appealed.

DECISION
: Home Harvest’s Medicaid agreement was terminated. The commission held that the DPA was admissible against Home Harvest. The fact that the owner claimed she did not know that the claims were false did not matter, nor did the prospect that the DPA was agreed to under duress, due to the threat of prosecution. Home Harvest could have presented evidence to counter the admissions in the DPA, but only that the owner supposedly did not know of the violations.


Taxpayer using § 1031 intermediary to buy new aircraft from seller, then trade old aircraft to a third party, not entitled trade-in credit on purchase price for use tax. Loren Cook Co. v. Director of Revenue, No. 10-0429 RS (Mo. AHC, December 7, 2012), Chapel, C.

The taxpayer used a § 1031 intermediary to sell its used airplane to party A and buy a new airplane from party B. The intermediary held title to both planes for a short time (measured in minutes) before transferring title per the agreement. The taxpayer claimed a trade-in credit of the used aircraft against the sales price of the new one for tax purposes. The Director denied the credit and assessed use tax, and the taxpayer appealed.

DECISION
: The taxpayer owed the additional use tax because the aircraft did not fall into the trade-in provisions of § 144.025.1, which by its terms only applied to a motor vehicle, trailer, boat, or outboard motor. Also, the transaction was not a trade-in for purposes of the statute, because a trade-in occurs between two parties, not three, per Great Southern Bank v. Director of Revenue, 269 S.W.3d 22 (Mo. banc 2008).