Virden v. Schaffner

9 Citing cases

  1. Cent. Hardware v. Dir. of Revenue

    887 S.W.2d 593 (Mo. 1994)   Cited 7 times

    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.

  2. Catholic Archdiocese v. Denver

    741 P.2d 333 (Colo. 1987)   Cited 4 times

    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:

  3. Pipe Fabricators, Inc. v. Director of Revenue

    654 S.W.2d 74 (Mo. 1983)   Cited 14 times

    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.

  4. Mid-America Television v. State Tax Com'n

    652 S.W.2d 674 (Mo. 1983)   Cited 23 times
    Explaining that while a new statute generally changes the existing law, a statute can also simply clarify existing law

    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.

  5. Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. Kirkpatrick

    652 S.W.2d 128 (Mo. 1983)   Cited 5 times

    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.

  6. Suzy's Bar Grill, Inc. v. Kansas City

    580 S.W.2d 259 (Mo. 1979)   Cited 6 times
    Stating "a gross-receipts-occupational-license tax starts with the revenue received by the licensee . . . and assesses a tax equal to a percentage of those revenues without regard to the makeup of the revenue and without restrictions to the percentage stated in the taxing ordinance"

    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).

  7. State ex Rel. Conserv. Com'n v. LePage

    566 S.W.2d 208 (Mo. 1978)   Cited 16 times
    In State ex rel. Conservation Commission v. LePage, 566 S.W.2d 208 (Mo. banc 1978), the court held that the special procedure for payment of the motor vehicle sales tax did not produce a different tax, levied upon the purchaser, and that the motor vehicle sales tax "* * * remains a tax, like the rest of the Sales Tax Law, upon gross receipts of the seller for the privilege of selling, with a different manner of collection and enforcement than is utilized for the rest of the Sales Tax Law."

    (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.

  8. Farm and Home Savings Ass'n v. Spradling

    538 S.W.2d 313 (Mo. 1976)   Cited 23 times
    In Farm Home, the Court announced a rule that exclusivity provisions contained in one tax statute do not create exemptions from sales and use taxes.

    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."

  9. State ex Rel. Farm. Elec. v. State Env. I. A.

    518 S.W.2d 68 (Mo. 1975)   Cited 39 times
    Concluding that the activities of the Environmental Improvement Authority, even if construed as a grant of public funds to a private entity, did not violate section 38 because the activities were for the public purpose of improving the environment

    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.