Sales Made to and by Exempt Organizations (Rescinded February 28, 2011)

AUTHORITY: section 144.270, RSMo 1994. This rule was previously filed as rule no. 4 Jan. 22, 1973, effective Feb. 1, 1973. S.T. regulation 040-3 was last filed Dec. 31, 1975, effective Jan. 10, 1976. Refiled March 30, 1976. Amended: Filed Aug. 13, 1980, effective Jan. 1, 1981. Amended: Filed Sept. 7, 1984, effective Jan. 12, 1985. Rescinded: Filed Aug. 16, 2010, effective Feb. 28, 2011. St. Louis Sheet Metal Joint Apprenticeship Fund v. Director of Revenue, Case No. RS-82-0424 (A.H.C. 11/16/83). A letter was issued to the petitioner, Apprenticeship Fund, by the director of revenue denying its request for an exemption from the payment of sales and use tax. The director of revenue asserted that the commission had no jurisdiction to rule on the denial of the exemption because the denial did not constitute an appealable final decision. It was the director’s position that until such time as an actual assessment had been issued against the petitioner, any order issued by the commission concerning petitioner’s right to an exemption would constitute a declaratory judgment, which is beyond the jurisdiction of this state’s quasi-judicial bodies according to the decision in State Tax Commission v. Administrative Hearing Commission, 641 SW2d 69 (Mo. banc 1982). The commission rejected this argument on the grounds that the issuance of the letter denying the exemption had an actual immediate impact on the petitioner. In particular, the commission looked to 12 CSR 10-3.382 which requires sellers to receive a letter of exemption before they may treat sales as exempt. Before an assessment could be issued, both petitioner and its sellers would have to violate the director’s regulation. With respect to whether the organization was in fact exempt under section 144.030.2(19), 144.030.2(20) or 144.030.2(22), RSMo, the commission found against the taxpayer. Those paragraphs provide an exemption for elementary and secondary schools and institutions of higher education. The commission found that the apprenticeship program was none of these.