SC85980 Appellant's Brief

No. SC86519 _______________ IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI _______________ SIX FLAGS THEME PARKS, INC., Respondent, v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, Appellant. ________________ Petition for Judicial Review From the Missouri Administrative Hearing Commission The Honorable Karen A. Winn, Commissioner _________________ APPELLANT’S BRIEF _________________ JEREMIAH W. (JAY) NIXON Attorney General EVAN J. BUCHHEIM Assistant Attorney General Missouri Bar No. 35661 Post Office Box 899 Jefferson City, MO 65102 (573) 751-3700 (573) 751-5391 (FAX) [email protected] Attorneys for Appellant Director of Revenue TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........................................ 4 JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT ................................... 10 STATEMENT OF FACTS ......................................... 12 POINT RELIED ON ............................................ 17 ARGUMENT ................................................... 19 A. Standard of review................................. 22 B. The amusement tax applies to any and all fees paid by patrons to a place of amusement................... 22 1. The fee Six Flags charged its customers to use inner tubes in its water park was subject to the amusement tax ................................ 23 2. The language and history of the lease tax shows that the Six Flags’s inner tube fee was a mere license to use .............................. 28 3. This Court’s decisions in Westwood and Six Flags are distinguishable do not control resolution of this issue under the facts of this case ...... 37 C. The specific-vs.-general theory of taxation........ 46 1. The evolution of the specific-vs.-general theory of taxation involving the sales tax law ...... 46 2 2. The specific- vs.-general theory of taxation is unsupported by the plain language of the sales tax law and should be abandoned .............. 52 3. The specific-vs.-general theory of taxation violates several well-established rules of statutory construction ....................... 55 4. The specific-vs.-general theory of taxation creates unpredictability, causes tax administration problems, and produces anomalous and unfair results ........................... 59 CONCLUSION ................................................. 67 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND COMPLIANCE ...................... 68 3 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Asbury v. Lombardi, 846 S.W.2d 196 (Mo. banc 1993) ......... 35 Baldwin v. Director of Revenue, 38 S.W.3d 401 (Mo. banc 2001) 55, 56 Bally’s LeMan’s Family Fun Centers, Inc. v. Director of Revenue, ...................... 745 S.W.2d 683 (Mo. banc 1988) 24 Becker Elec. Co. v. Director of Revenue, 749 S.W.2d 403 (Mo. banc 1988) Blue Springs Bowl v. Spradling, 551 S.W.2d 596 (Mo. banc 1977) 20, 24, 39, 53 Brown v. Patterson, 124 S.W. 1 (Mo. 1909) .................. 30 Buchholz Mortuaries, Inc. v. Director of Revenue, 113 S.W.3d 192 (Mo. banc 2003) City of Springfield v. Director of Revenue, 659 S.W.2d 782 (Mo. banc 1983) Columbia Athletic Club v. Director of Revenue, 961 S.W.2d 806 (Mo. banc 1998) Corvera Abatement Tech., Inc. v. Air Conservation Comm’n,973 S.W.2d 851 (Mo. banc 1998) Cummins v. Kansas City Pub. Serv. Co., 334 Mo. 672, 66 S.W.2d 920 (1933) Eighty Hundred Clayton Corp. d/b/a Tropicana Lanes v. Director of Revenue, 111 S.W.3d 409 (Mo. banc 2003)10, 21, 25, 27, 42, 52, 61 Esmar v. Zurich Ins. Co., 485 S.W.2d 417 (Mo. 1972) ........ 37 Federhofer, Inc. v. Morris, 364 S.W.2d 524 (Mo. 1963) .. 33, 34 Giloti v. Hamm-Singer Corp., ....... 396 S.W.2d 711 (Mo. 1965) 43 4 Graves v. Little Tarkio Drainage Dist., 134 S.W.2d 70 (Mo. 1939) 57, 58 Greenbriar Hills Country Club v. Director of Revenue, 935 S.W.2d 36 (Mo. banc 1996) Greenbriar Hills Country Club v. Director of Revenue, 47 S.W.3d 346 (Mo. banc 2001) Hewitt Well Drilling & Pump Serv. v. Director of Revenue, 847 S.W.2d 797 (Mo. banc 1993) Hovis v. Daves, 14 S.W.3d 593 (Mo. banc 2000) .............. 56 International Bus. Mach. Corp. v. David, 408 S.W.2d 833 (Mo. banc 1966) International Bus. Mach. Corp. v. State Tax Comm’n, 362 S.W.2d 635 (Mo. 1962) J.B. Vending Co. v. Director of Revenue, 54 S.W.3d 183 (Mo. banc 2001) Kanakuk-Kanakomo Kamps v. Director of Revenue, 8 S.W.3d 94 (Mo. banc 1999) Katz v. Slade, 460 S.W.2d 608 (Mo. 1970) ................... 37 L & R Distrib. Co. v. Missouri Dep’t of Revenue, 648 S.W.2d 91 (Mo. 1983) L & R Distrib., Inc. v. Missouri Dep’t of Revenue, 529 S.W.2d 375 (Mo. 1975) La-Z-Boy Chair Co. v. Director of Econ. Dev., 983 S.W.2d 523 (Mo. banc 1999) Lonergan v. May, 53 S.W.3d 122 (Mo. App. W.D. 2001) .... 30, 55 Old Warson Country Club v. Director of Revenue, 933 S.W.2d 400 (Mo. banc 1996) O’Malley v. Continental Life Ins. Co., 75 S.W.2d 837 (Mo. banc 1934) Pollard v. Board of Police Comm’rs, 665 S.W.2d 333 (Mo. banc 1984) 41 Shelter Mutual Ins. Co. v. Director of Revenue, 107 S.W.3d 919 (Mo. banc 2003) Siciliano v. Capital City Shows, Inc., 475 A.2d 19 (N.H. 1984)37 Six Flags Theme Parks, Inc. v. Director of Revenue, 102 S.W.3d 526 (Mo. banc 2003) State ex inf. Taylor v. Kiburz, 208 S.W.2d 285 (Mo. banc 1948) 30, 55 5 State ex rel. City of Springfield v. Smith, 344 Mo. 150, 125 S.W.2d 883 (Mo. banc 1939) State ex rel. Frisby v. Stone, 152 Mo. 202, 53 S.W. 1069 (1899) ..................................................... 31 State ex rel. Powell v. Capps, ..... 381 S.W.2d 852 (Mo. 1964) 54 State ex rel. Union Elec. Co. v. Goldberg, 578 S.W.2d 921 (Mo. banc 1979) Surrey’s on the Plaza Inc. v. Director of Revenue, 128 S.W.3d 508 (Mo. banc 2004) Thoroughbred Ford Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 908 S.W.2d 719 (Mo. App. E.D. 1995) Union Elec. Co. v. Morris, 222 S.W.2d 767 (Mo. 1949) ....... 40 Westwood Country Club v. Director of Revenue, 6 S.W.3d 885 (Mo. banc 1999) Wilson’s Total Fitness Center, Inc. v. Director of Revenue, 38 S.W.3d 424 (Mo. banc 2001) Wollard v. City of Kansas City, 831 S.W.2d 200 (Mo. banc 1992) 42 6 Constitutions and Statutes MO. CONST. art. V, § 3....................................... 11 Section 136.300, RSMo 2000 ................................. 22 Section 144.010.1(10), RSMo Cum. Supp. 2004 ............. 24, 45 Section 144.010.1(3), RSMo Cum. Supp. 2004 ......... 29, 35, 37 Section 144.020.1, RSMo Cum. Supp. 2004 .................... 23 Section 144.020.1(1), RSMo Cum. Supp. 2004 ................. 45 Section 144.020.1(2), RSMo Cum. Supp. 2004 ......... 20, 23, 45 Section 144.020.1(8), RSMo Cum. Supp. 2004 ...... 20, 28, 42, 48 Section 144.021, RSMo 2000 ......................... 24, 28, 53 Section 144.518, RSMo 2000 ............................. 44, 58 Section 621.050, RSMo 2000 ............................. 10, 22 Section 621.189, RSMo Cum. Supp. 2004 ...................... 11 Section 621.193, RSMo 2000 .................................. 22 7 8 Other Authorities 1933-34 Mo. Laws Extra Session 157, § 2A(a) ................. 57 1963 Mo. Laws 196 .......................................... 58 73 Am. Jur. 2d Statues § 318 (1974) ......................... 30 BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 461 (abr. 5th ed. 1983).................. 36 THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY 1047 (2d College ed. 1985) ...... 35 WEBSTER’S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY 1304 (3rd ed. 1993) .... 36 9 JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT This case is a petition for judicial review from a decision of the Administrative Hearing Commission (AHC), rendered under § 621.050,1 finding that Respondent, Six Flags Theme Parks, Inc., was entitled to a refund of sales taxes it had previously remitted to the Director of Revenue. Six Flags, which operates a place of amusement, sought a refund of sales taxes it had collected from its customers on fees it had charged them to use inner tubes in its water park. The AHC, relying on this Court’s decisions in Westwood Country Club v. Director of Revenue, 6 S.W.3d 885 (Mo. banc 1999), and Six Flags Theme Parks, Inc. v. Director of Revenue, 102 S.W.3d 526 (Mo. banc 2003), determined that the inner tube fees were not taxable under § 144.020.1(2) (the amusement tax), because a more “specific” taxing provision, § 144.020.1(8) (the lease tax), applied to exempt the inner-tube fees from tax. The AHC reached this result despite the fact that a more recent decision of this Court in Eighty Hundred Clayton Corp. 1All sectional references are to the 2000 Revised Statutes of Missouri, unless otherwise indicated. 10 d/b/a Tropicana Lanes v. Director of Revenue, 111 S.W.3d 409 (Mo. banc 2003) (Tropicana), seemingly dictated the opposite result. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court because this appeal involves the construction of one or more revenue laws of this state. MO. CONST. art. V, § 3; § 621.189, RSMo Cum. Supp. 2004. 11 STATEMENT OF FACTS This case involves Six Flags’s application to the Director of Revenue for a refund of $23,490.73 in sales taxes it collected from its customers on fees it charged for the use of inner tubes in its water park. Six Flags sought a refund of taxes it collected on those fees for June through September 2000. (L.F. 243).2 The Director denied Six Flags’s refund claim, and Six Flags appealed that decision to the AHC. (L.F. 243, 246). The AHC determined that Six Flags was entitled to a refund of the sales taxes its customers paid on the fees Six 2Six Flags’s filed two separate complaints with the AHC. (L.F. 246). The first complaint (AHC case number 03-1919 RS) involved the June through September 2000 tax period. (L.F.

Load more