Idaho Code
Idaho Code § 63-3622 (2026)
Exemptions — Exemption certificates and resale certificates — Penalties.
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IClegislature.idaho.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Exemptions — Exemption certificates and resale certificates — Penalties.
(a) To prevent evasion of the sales and use tax, it shall be presumed that all sales are subject to the taxes imposed by the provisions of this chapter and the retailer shall have the burden of establishing the facts giving rise to such exemption unless the purchaser delivers to the retailer, or has on file with the retailer, an exemption certificate or resale certificate, in which case the purchaser shall bear the burden of establishing the facts giving rise to the exemption.
(b) An exemption certificate shall show the purchaser’s name, business name, address, a federal employer identification number or driver’s license number and state of issue, signature, date, and the reason for and nature of the claimed exemption.
(c) A resale certificate shall be signed and dated by, and bear the name and address of, the purchaser or his agent, shall show the federal employer identification number or driver’s license number and state of issue, shall indicate the number of the permit issued to the purchaser or that the purchaser is an out-of-state retailer, and shall indicate the general character of the tangible personal property sold or rented by the purchaser in the regular course of business. If a purchaser who gives a resale certificate makes any use of the property other than retention, demonstration or display while holding it for sale or rent in the regular course of business, the use shall be taxable to the purchaser as of the time the property is first used by him, and the sales price of the property to him shall be deemed the measure of the tax.
(d) A seller may accept an exemption certificate or resale certificate from a purchaser prior to the time of sale, at the time of the sale, or at any reasonable time after the sale when necessary to establish the privilege of the exemption. Other than as provided elsewhere in this section, when an exemption certificate or resale certificate, properly executed, is presented to or is on file with the seller, the seller has no duty or obligation to collect sales or use taxes in regard to any sales transaction so documented regardless of whether the purchaser properly or improperly claimed an exemption. A seller so relieved of the obligation to collect tax is also relieved of any liability to the purchaser for failure to collect tax or for making any report or disclosure of information required or permitted under this chapter. The purchaser providing an exemption certificate or resale certificate to a seller shall bear all responsibility and liability for any subsequent audit of the transaction and the seller shall be held harmless. A seller need not accept an exemption certificate or resale certificate that is not readable, legible or copyable.
(e) Any person who gives an exemption certificate or resale certificate with the intention of evading payment of the amount of the tax applicable to the transaction is guilty of a misdemeanor and punishable by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000) or imprisonment for not more than one (1) year, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
(f) An exemption certificate or resale certificate shall be substantially in such form as the state tax commission may prescribe. The claim for the exemption may be a part of the documentation on a sales invoice, purchase order, or other documentation retained by the retailer with regard to the sale. Unless the purchaser has an exemption certificate or resale certificate on file with the seller, the purchaser or his agent must sign the exemption claim, which shall be in addition to any other signature which the seller normally requires on sales invoices, purchase orders, or other sales documentation.
(g) It shall be presumed that sales made to a person who has completed an exemption certificate or resale certificate for the seller’s records are not taxable and the seller need not collect sales or use taxes unless the tangible personal property or services purchased are taxable to the purchaser as a matter of law in the particular instance claimed on the exemption certificate.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases, 1971–2005 · leading case: Idaho State Tax Comm'n v. Haener Bros., 828 P.2d 304 (Idaho 1992).
Idaho State Tax Comm'n v. Haener Bros., 828 P.2d 304 (Idaho 1992). “Idaho Code § 63-3622 (d) states in part: Receipts from the sale, storage, use or other consumption in this state of tangible personal property which will enter into and become an ingredient or component part of tangible personal property manufactured, processed, mined, produced…”
K Mart Corp. v. Idaho State Tax Comm'n, 727 P.2d 1147 (Idaho 1986). “The statute requires that a party fall within the use tax before a court can consider the exemptions contained in I.C. § 63-3622. Based upon these principles, the trial court's decision finding the K-Mart advertising inserts a component part of the newspaper should be affirmed.”
Richardson v. State Tax Comm'n, 604 P.2d 719 (Idaho 1979). “We are called upon to determine in this appeal whether certain equipment used in a lumber mill operation owned by plaintiff respondents Richardsons is exempt from the state sales tax under the sales tax manufacturing and processing exemption contained in I.C. § 63-3622(d). 1…”
Leonard Constr. Co. v. State Ex Rel. State Tax Comm'n, 539 P.2d 246 (Idaho 1975). “” At the time of the original enactment a number of exemptions to the use tax were listed, including one covering “tangible personal property primarily and directly used or consumed in or during * * * [a] manufacturing, processing, mining, farming or fabricating operation * * *…”
State v. Barlow, 746 P.2d 1032 (Idaho Ct. App. 1987). “See I.C. § 63-3622(bb). The question is whether the trial judge considered and applied the appropriate test to determine whether a new trial was warranted.”
Bunker Hill Co. v. State ex rel. State Tax Comm'n, 725 P.2d 162 (Idaho 1986). “Bunker Hill filed a timely complaint in district court which resulted in a decision that none of the taxes were due, the court holding that the purchases were exempt under I.C. § 63-3622(d). This appeal followed. We discuss the appropriate treatment of each of the four…”
Ada Cnty. Bd. of Equalization v. Highlands, Inc., 108 P.3d 349 (Idaho 2005). “In examining the “production” tax exemption in I.C. § 63-3622(d) in Idaho State Tax Comm’n v.”
Consol. Freightways Corp. v. State, Dep't of Revenue & Taxation, 735 P.2d 963 (Idaho 1987). “(b) The term "use" includes the exercise of any right or power over tangible personal property incident to the ownership or the leasing of that property or the exercise of any right or power over tangible personal property by any person in the performance of a contract, or to…”
Kwik Vend Inc. v. Koontz, 483 P.2d 928 (Idaho 1971). “I.C. § 63-3622 sets forth a series of exemptions from the taxes imposed by “The Idaho Sales Tax Act” of 1965.”
Potlatch Corp. v. Idaho State Tax Comm'n, 813 P.2d 340 (Idaho 1991). “This is a use tax case involving the application of the “production exemption” contained in I.C. § 63-3622(d) [now I.C. § 63-3622D] (the production exemption).”
Evans v. Idaho State Tax Comm'n, 501 P.2d 1054 (Idaho 1972). “That Section 63-3622, Idaho Code, be and the'same is hereby amended to read as follows: “63-3622.”
Idaho State Tax Comm'n v. Railbox Co., 788 P.2d 180 (Idaho 1989). “The statute requires that a party fall within the use tax before a court can consider the exemptions contained in I.C. § 63-3622. Id. at 723, 727 P.2d 1147 .”
— Idaho Code § 63-3622(bb) — 1 case
State v. Barlow, 746 P.2d 1032 (Idaho Ct. App. 1987). “See I.C. § 63-3622(bb). The question is whether the trial judge considered and applied the appropriate test to determine whether a new trial was warranted.”
— Idaho Code § 63-3622(c) — 1 case
State v. Barlow, 746 P.2d 1032 (Idaho Ct. App. 1987). “See I.C. § 63-3622(bb). The question is whether the trial judge considered and applied the appropriate test to determine whether a new trial was warranted.”
— Idaho Code § 63-3622(d) — 9 cases
Idaho State Tax Comm'n v. Haener Bros., 828 P.2d 304 (Idaho 1992). “Idaho Code § 63-3622 (d) states in part: Receipts from the sale, storage, use or other consumption in this state of tangible personal property which will enter into and become an ingredient or component part of tangible personal property manufactured, processed, mined, produced…”
K Mart Corp. v. Idaho State Tax Comm'n, 727 P.2d 1147 (Idaho 1986). “The statute requires that a party fall within the use tax before a court can consider the exemptions contained in I.C. § 63-3622. Based upon these principles, the trial court's decision finding the K-Mart advertising inserts a component part of the newspaper should be affirmed.”
Richardson v. State Tax Comm'n, 604 P.2d 719 (Idaho 1979). “We are called upon to determine in this appeal whether certain equipment used in a lumber mill operation owned by plaintiff respondents Richardsons is exempt from the state sales tax under the sales tax manufacturing and processing exemption contained in I.C. § 63-3622(d). 1…”
Leonard Constr. Co. v. State Ex Rel. State Tax Comm'n, 539 P.2d 246 (Idaho 1975). “” At the time of the original enactment a number of exemptions to the use tax were listed, including one covering “tangible personal property primarily and directly used or consumed in or during * * * [a] manufacturing, processing, mining, farming or fabricating operation * * *…”
Bunker Hill Co. v. State ex rel. State Tax Comm'n, 725 P.2d 162 (Idaho 1986). “Bunker Hill filed a timely complaint in district court which resulted in a decision that none of the taxes were due, the court holding that the purchases were exempt under I.C. § 63-3622(d). This appeal followed. We discuss the appropriate treatment of each of the four…”
— Idaho Code § 63-3622(e) — 2 cases
Richardson v. State Tax Comm'n, 604 P.2d 719 (Idaho 1979). “We are called upon to determine in this appeal whether certain equipment used in a lumber mill operation owned by plaintiff respondents Richardsons is exempt from the state sales tax under the sales tax manufacturing and processing exemption contained in I.C. § 63-3622(d). 1…”
Bunker Hill Co. v. State ex rel. State Tax Comm'n, 725 P.2d 162 (Idaho 1986). “Bunker Hill filed a timely complaint in district court which resulted in a decision that none of the taxes were due, the court holding that the purchases were exempt under I.C. § 63-3622(d). This appeal followed. We discuss the appropriate treatment of each of the four…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.