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.
" 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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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."