The Missouri sales tax law, as amended in 1965, is a gross receipts tax imposed upon the seller. Farm and HomeSavings Association v. Spradling, 538 S.W.2d 313, 316 (Mo. 1976); Fabick and Company v. Schaffner, 492 S.W.2d 737, 743 (Mo. 1973); Virden v. Schaffner, 496 S.W.2d 846, 848 (Mo. 1973); appeal dismissed, 414 U.S. 1105, 94 S.Ct. 831, 38 L.Ed.2d 733 (1973). §§ 144.010- 144.510, RSMo 1986.
These provisions are sufficient to convince us that Denver intended the consumer and not the retailer to pay the tax. Compare Bedford v. Hartman Brothers, Inc., 104 Colo. 190, 89 P.2d 584 (1939) (sales tax imposed by State of Colorado is a tax on consumer with retailer only acting as collecting agent for state) with Virden v. Schaffner, 496 S.W.2d 846 (Mo. 1973) (sales tax a "privilege tax" imposed on retailer for privilege of engaging in business of selling personal property at retail; retailer, not consumer, responsible for payment of tax). In support of their position that they were not allowed to collect a tax on vending machine sales of 15¢, the publishers rely on the following provision:
Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. v. Kirkpatrick, 652 S.W.2d 128 (Mo. banc 1983); Bopp v. Spainhower, 519 S.W.2d at 289. Whereas Bates and Barhorst v. City of St. Louis, 423 S.W.2d 843, 846 (Mo. banc 1967) hold that there may not be an arbitrary classification for tax purposes, Virden v. Schaffner, 496 S.W.2d 846, 848 (Mo. 1973), appeal dismissed, 414 U.S. 1105, 94 S.Ct. 831, 38 L.Ed.2d 733 (1973) makes manifest that the General Assembly may provide reasonable classifications. And reasonable classification — as contrasted with Bates — was provided in this case.
Uniformity of taxation does not require that all subjects of taxation be taxed, and it does not mean universality; it only requires that taxes be uniform as to each class upon which they fall. Virden v. Schaffner, 496 S.W.2d 846, 848 (Mo. 1973); State ex rel. Jones v. Nolte, 350 Mo. 271, 165 S.W.2d 632, 636 (banc 1942). The requirements of § 143.431 and the method by which the director computes the deductions for federal taxes paid by single members of an affiliated group fall alike on all taxpayers.
But it is, of course, impossible to avert all discriminatory impact. San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriquez, 411 U.S. 1, 41, 93 S.Ct. 1278, 1301, 36 L.Ed.2d 16 (1973); Virden v. Schaffner, 496 S.W.2d 846, 849-50 (Mo. 1973), appeal dismissed, 414 U.S. 1105, 94 S.Ct. 831, 38 L.Ed.2d 733 (1973). Moreover, equal protection does not mean that the state cannot treat one class of entities differently than another.
Nor is it decisive to note that the tax involved here is called a "gross receipts" tax because the state sales tax is also a form of "gross receipts" tax. Section 144.021, RSMo 1969; Fabick Co. v. Schaffner, 492 S.W.2d 737 (Mo. 1973); Virden v. Schaffner, 496 S.W.2d 846 (Mo. 1973); Farm Home Savings Ass'n v. Spradling, 538 S.W.2d 313, 316 (Mo. 1976). The fact that the ordinances impose the obligation to pay the tax of 1% upon the licensee without affording the licensee the legally enforceable right to collect 1% of the food bill from the customer does not necessarily mean the tax is an "Occupational License Tax" and not a "sales tax". If the tax is truly an occupational license tax on gross receipts assessable against the licensee, then whatever part of the customer's bill which represents a portion of the licensee's tax obligation is collectible from the purchaser because it is simply part of the charge for food made by the licensee out of which the licensee must pay the expense of doing business, including such expense items as taxes. Ludwigs v. City of Kansas City, 487 S.W.2d 519 (Mo. 1972).
(Emphasis added.) Virden v. Schaffner, 496 S.W.2d 846, 848 (Mo. 1973). Finally, the court considered the matter for a third time in Farm and Home Savings Ass'n v. Spradling, 538 S.W.2d 313 (Mo. 1976) and again declared that the entire tax is a gross receipts tax imposed upon the seller.
Subsequently, this court has on two occasions considered the question of whether the sales tax law, as amended in 1965, constituted a tax on the buyer or the seller and on both occasions held the sales tax law as amended was a gross-receipts tax imposed upon the seller. Fabick and Company v. Schaffner, 492 S.W.2d 737 (Mo. 1973); Virden v. Schaffner, 496 S.W.2d 846 (Mo. 1973). In Virden, the second of the two cases, the court said at 848: "We reaffirm that the entire tax imposed by Chapter 144 is a gross receipts tax."
We do not believe that the classification made can be held to be arbitrary. See also: Ludlow-Saylor Wire Co. v. Wollbrinck, 275 Mo. 339, 205 S.W. 196 (1918); Walters v. City of St. Louis, 364 Mo. 56, 259 S.W.2d 377 (1953); 508 Chestnut, Inc. v. City of St. Louis, 389 S.W.2d 823 (Mo. 1965); and Virden v. Schaffner, 496 S.W.2d 846 (Mo. 1973). We, as do the parties, recognize that ecology problems are national in scope and that other courts have considered comparable legislation.