Miss. State Tax Com'n v. Medical Devices

27 Citing cases

  1. Castigliola v. Miss. Dep't of Revenue

    162 So. 3d 795 (Miss. 2015)   Cited 6 times
    Holding that under Mississippi law, the MDOR carries the burden to show that a particular taxing power applies to a particular transaction

    However, as noted above, it is clear from our prior holdings that this Court recognizes a distinction between a transaction that is beyond MDOR's statutory authority to tax and a situation where a statute would apply but for another statute or regulation that excludes the particular transaction from that tax statute. Compare Miss. State Tax Comm'n v. Med. Devices, Inc., 624 So.2d 987, 990–91 (Miss.1993), with Stone v. Rogers, 186 Miss. 53, 189 So. 810, 812 (1939) ; see also Fishbelt Feeds, Inc., 158 So.3d 984. ¶ 15. Second, once MDOR establishes that a transaction is subject to taxation, it is the taxpayer's burden to prove some statute or regulation would exempt the taxpayer from the tax.

  2. Castigliola v. Miss. Dep't of Revenue

    NO. 2013-SA-01574-SCT (Miss. Aug. 15, 2013)

    " Id. ¶15. Second, once MDOR establishes that a transaction is subject to taxation, it is the taxpayer's burden to prove some statute or regulation would exempt the taxpayer from the tax. See Miss. State Tax Comm'n v. Med. Devices, Inc., 624 So. 2d 987, 990-91 (Miss. 1993); Fishbelt Feeds, Inc., 158 So. 3d at 991. Tax exemptions "must be construed most favorably to the taxing power, and the claimant has the burden of showing clearly his right to an exemption."

  3. University of Mississippi Medical Center v. Pounders

    2006 CA 1371 (Miss. 2007)   Cited 56 times
    Applying lay standard of care in case involving injury to a patient caused by a hospital escort because the escort's conduct did not involve professional conduct

    Accordingly, the standard of review is the manifest error/substantial evidence rule. Miss. State Tax Comm'n v. Med. Devices, 624 So.2d 987, 989 (Miss. 1993). UMC argues that the findings of fact and conclusion of law adopted by the trial court were copied virtually verbatim from the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Plaintiff, and thus, a heightened level of scrutiny should apply.

  4. Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp. v. Buelow

    670 So. 2d 12 (Miss. 1996)   Cited 32 times
    Upholding use of Webster's Third New International Dictionary to conclude the popular meaning of “raw material” did not include electricity

    This Court's review of a chancellor's findings of fact is the manifest error/substantial evidence rule. Miss. State Tax Com'n v. Medical Devices, 624 So.2d 987 (Miss. 1993). This Court reviews law application de novo and our scope of review is plenary.

  5. Biddix v. McConnell

    2004 CA 150 (Miss. 2005)   Cited 21 times
    Holding that "[t]he initial question of whether a contract is ambiguous is a matter of law"

    This Court's "review of a chancellor's findings of fact is the manifest error/substantial evidence rule." Miss. State Tax Comm'n v. Med. Devices, Inc., 624 So.2d 987, 989 (Miss. 1993). ¶ 8.

  6. Rankin Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors v. Lakeland Income Props., LLC

    241 So. 3d 1279 (Miss. 2018)   Cited 6 times
    In Lakeland, the Court held that an airport authority can lease property only if the lease serves the purposes listed in Section 61-3-21(1).

    grant of exemption from taxation is never presumed; on the contrary, in all cases having doubt as to legislative intention, or as to inclusion of particular property within [the] terms of [the exemption] statute, [the] presumption is in favor of [the] taxing power, and [the] burden is on [the] claimant to prove or establish clearly his right to exemption ....Castigliola v. Miss. Dep't of Revenue , 162 So.3d 795, 799–800 (Miss. 2015) (quoting Miss. State Tax Comm'n v. Med. Devices, Inc. , 624 So. 2d 987, 990–91 (Miss. 1993) ). And, under the summary judgment standard, "[t]he evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. The moving party has the burden of demonstrating no genuine issue of material fact exists.

  7. Favre v. Jourdan River Estates

    148 So. 3d 361 (Miss. 2014)   Cited 4 times

    Biddix v. McConnell, 911 So.2d 468, 474 ( ¶ 17) (Miss.2005) (quoting Miss. State Tax Comm'n v. Med. Devices, Inc., 624 So.2d 987, 989 (Miss.1993) ). The Court “has held that a chancellor's finding of fact may only be disturbed if the chancellor abused his discretion, was manifestly wrong, clearly erroneous, or applied the wrong legal standard.”

  8. Fishbelt Feeds, Inc. v. Miss. Dep't of Revenue

    158 So. 3d 984 (Miss. 2014)

    Dep't of Rev. v. Pikco Finance, Inc., 97 So.3d 1203, 1210 (Miss.2012) (quoting Miss. State Tax Comm'n v. Med. Devices, Inc., 624 So.2d 987, 990 (Miss.1993)) (internal citations omitted). ¶ 20.

  9. Fishbelt Feeds, Inc. v. Miss. Dep't of Revenue

    158 So. 3d 984 (Miss. 2014)   Cited 3 times

    Dep't of Rev. v. Pikco Finance, Inc., 97 So.3d 1203, 1210 (Miss.2012) (quoting Miss. State Tax Comm'n v. Med. Devices, Inc., 624 So.2d 987, 990 (Miss.1993) ) (internal citations omitted).¶ 20.

  10. Favre v. Jourdan River Estates

    NO. 2013-CA-01177-SCT (Miss. May. 29, 2013)

    Biddix v. McConnell, 911 So. 2d 468, 474 (¶ 17) (Miss. 2005) (quoting Miss. State Tax Comm'n v. Med. Devices, Inc., 624 So. 2d 987, 989 (Miss. 1993)). The Court "has held that a chancellor's finding of fact may only be disturbed if the chancellor abused his discretion, was manifestly wrong, clearly erroneous, or applied the wrong legal standard."