12 CSR 10-3.052
Sale of Ice (Rescinded February 28, 2011)
AUTHORITY: section 144.270, RSMo 1994. This rule was previously
filed as rule no. 45 Jan. 22, 1973, effective Feb. 1, 1973. S.T.
regulation 010-22 was last filed Dec. 31, 1975, effective Jan. 10,
1976. Refiled March 30, 1976. Rescinded: Filed Aug. 30, 2010,
effective Feb. 28, 2011.
P.F.D. Supply Corporation v. Director of Revenue, Case No. RS80-0055 (A.H.C. 6/6/85). The issue in this case was the imposition
of sales tax on certain sales transactions of shortening and
nonreusable plastic and paper products which petitioner sells to
restaurants for use in the preparation and service of food products.
Petitioner asserted that the sales in question were exempt as
sales for resale because the purchasing restaurants were not the
ultimate consumer of the goods in question. The commissioner,
relying on the exemption set forth in section 144.030.3(1), RSMo
for materials purchased for use in “manufacturing, processing,
compounding, mining, producing or fabricating” found that the
production of food by a restaurant constituted processing.
Relying on its previous decision in Blueside Co. v. Director of
Revenue, Case No. RS-82-4625 (A.H.C. 10/5/84) the commission
found that the petitioner’s sale of shortening was exempt from
taxation to the extent that the purchaser intended for it to be
absorbed into the fried foods. The sale of the portion which the
purchaser did not expect to be so absorbed was not exempt as
an ingredient or component part. However, petitioner asserted
that the unabsorbed portion was exempt as a purchase for resale
because it was sold by the purchaser for salvage after being used.
Again referring to Blueside, the commission held that the salvage
sale was only incidental to the primary transaction. Therefore, the
purchasing restaurant was the user and the sale to that restaurant
was a taxable retail sale.
However, the commission also found that the petitioner accepted
exemption certificates in good faith for all the shortening held.
Acknowledging that the Missouri Supreme Court in Overland
Steel, Inc. v. Director of Revenue, 647 SW2d 535 (Mo. banc
1983) held that the good faith acceptance of an exemption
certificate does not absolve the seller from liability for sales tax,
the Administrative Hearing Commission cited other authority for
the proposition that the seller is exempt. The commission resorted
to section 32.200, art. V, section 2, RSMo (1978) of the Multistate
Tax Compact which specifically provides such an exemption. The
Supreme Court had not addressed this in the Overland Steel case.
Not only did respondent have a regulation, 12 CSR 10-3.194, which
recognizes the applicability of section 32.200 to Missouri sales and
use tax, but it had another regulation, 12 CSR 10-3.536(2), in effect
at the time of the audit which specifically relieved the seller of
liability when an exemption certificate was accepted in good faith.
Based upon this the commission found that the seller’s good faith
exempted it from liability.
Finally, the commission held that nonreusable paper and
plastic products were purchased for resale, inasmuch as they were
provided to restaurant patrons as part of the cost of the food and
beverages. Therefore, the sale to the restaurants was not a taxable
transaction and no tax was due from the petitioner on such items.