Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 36, § 1763 (2026)

Presumptions

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The burden of proving that a transaction was not taxable is on the person charged with tax liability. The presumption that a sale was not for resale may be overcome during an audit or upon reconsideration if the seller proves that the purchaser was the holder of a currently valid resale certificate as provided in section 1754‑B at the time of the sale or proves through other means that the property purchased was purchased for resale by the purchaser in the ordinary course of business. Notwithstanding section 1752, subsection 11, paragraph B, if the seller satisfies the seller's burden of proof, the sale is not considered a retail sale. [PL 2007, c. 693, §16 (AMD).]

SECTION HISTORY

PL 2007, c. 693, §16 (AMD).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases, 1985–2012 · leading case: Jackson Advert. Corp. v. State Tax Assessor, 551 A.2d 1365 (Me. 1988).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Jackson Advert. Corp. v. State Tax Assessor, 551 A.2d 1365 (Me. 1988). · cites it 2× “[3] 36 M.R.S.A. § 1763 (1978) states: The burden of proving that a transaction was not taxable shall be upon the person charged with tax liability.”

Apex Custom Lease Corp. v. State Tax Assessor, 677 A.2d 530 (Me. 1996). · cites it 2× “Pursuant to 36 M.R.S.A. § 1763 (1990), 5 the taxpayer protesting the imposition of a tax has the burden of demonstrating that the transaction in question is not taxable.”

Measurex Sys., Inc. v. State Tax Assessor, 490 A.2d 1192 (Me. 1985). “36 M.R.S.A. § 1763 (1978) states: The burden of proving that a transaction was not taxable shall be upon the person charged with tax liability.”

Precast Structures, Inc. v. State Tax Assessor, 568 A.2d 517 (Me. 1990). “Since the burden is on Precast to show that these are not taxable items, see 36 M.R.S.A. § 1763 (1978), the State Tax Assessor’s decision that these were part of Precast’s retail sale of precast or pre-stressed concrete was not irrational.”

Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. State Tax Assessor, 652 A.2d 107 (Me. 1995). “” 36 M.R.S.A. § 1763 (1990). A use tax is imposed on the use 4 of tangible personal property or a service if the sale of it would be subject to a sales tax.”

Sunday River Skiway Corp. v. State Tax Assessor, 573 A.2d 24 (Me. 1990). “Under 36 M.R.S.A. § 1763 (1978), Sunday River bore the burden of proving that these purchases were not taxable transactions.”

Eagle Rental, Inc. v. State Tax Assessor (Me. Super. Ct 2012). · cites it 2× “§ 151; 36 M.R.S. § 1763 (2011); accord SST & S, Inc.”

Limoli v. Maine Revenue Serv. (Me. Super. Ct 2002). “” 36 M.R.S.A. § 1763 (1990); see also 36 M.”

Williams v. State Tax Assessor State Tax Assessor (Me. Super. Ct 2002). “” 36 M.R.S.A. § 1763 (1990); see also 36 M.”

Scarboro Muffler Ctr., Inc. v. State of Maine (Me. Super. Ct 2008). “36 M.R.S. § 1763. The Assessor published Bulletin No.”

Brent Leasing Co., Inc. v. [Maine] State Tax Assessor (Me. Super. Ct 2000). “” Going further, “intrastate commerce” is Mt defined as “commerce that begins and ends entirely within the borders of a single state.”

Hight Chevrolet-Geo-Pontiac v. Maine State Tax Assessor (Me. Super. Ct 2000). “” 36 M.R.S.A. § 1763. “The well settled principle that taxation is the rule and tax exemption is the exception places the burden on the [taxpayer] to bring its request unmistakably within the spirit and intent of the claimed exemption.”

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.