144.210. Burden of proving questionable sale on seller — exemption certificates — additional assessment — notice. — 1. The burden of proving that a sale of tangible personal property, services, substances or things was not a sale at retail shall be upon the person who made the sale, except that with respect to sales, services, or transactions provided for in section 144.070. The seller shall obtain and maintain exemption certificates signed by the purchaser or his agent as evidence for any exempt sales claimed; provided, however, that before any administrative tribunal of this state, a seller may prove that sale is exempt from tax under this chapter in accordance with proof admissible under the applicable rules of evidence; except that when a purchaser has purchased tangible personal property or services sales tax free under a claim of exemption which is found to be improper, the director of revenue may collect the proper amount of tax, interest, additions to tax and penalty from the purchaser directly. Any tax, interest, additions to tax or penalty collected by the director from the purchaser shall be credited against the amount otherwise due from the seller on the purchases or sales where the exemption was claimed.
2. If the director of revenue is not satisfied with the return and payment of the tax made by any person, he is hereby authorized and empowered to make an additional assessment of tax due from such person, based upon the facts contained in the return or upon any information within his possession or that shall come into his possession.
3. The director of revenue shall give to the person written notice of such additional or revised assessment by certified or registered mail to the person at his or its last known address.
Notes of Decisions
Overland Steel, Inc. v. Dir. of Revenue, 647 S.W.2d 535 (Mo. 1983).
· cites it 14× “Section 144.210 RSMo 1978. Those claiming a sale exempt from tax must retain an exemption certificate as evidence of the exempt sale.”
Canteen Corp. v. Goldberg, 592 S.W.2d 754 (Mo. 1980).
· cites it 6× “Section 144.210 RSMo 1969. Exemption certificates are acknowledgments by the purchaser of goods that the sale to the purchaser was not a sale at retail but a sale for resale.”
Floyd Charcoal Co. v. Dir. of Revenue, 599 S.W.2d 173 (Mo. 1980).
· cites it 4× “Here the assessment is against the purchaser on the theory that its purchases were under an improper claim of exemption, as authorized by Section 144.210. The burden was upon Floyd to sustain its claim of exemption by reason of purchase for resale.”
Labrayere v. Goldberg, 605 S.W.2d 79 (Mo. 1980).
· cites it 4× “The findings of fact and conclusions of law quoted that portion of § 144.210, RSMo 1969, which states that “[t]he burden of proving that a sale of tangible personal property, services, substances or things was not a sale at retail, shall be upon the person who made the sale”.”
Farm & Home Sav. Ass'n v. Spradling, 538 S.W.2d 313 (Mo. 1976).
· cites it 2× “Section 144.210 provides in part, “Exemption certificates signed by the purchaser or his agent shall be required to be kept by the seller as evidence for any exempt sales claimed; except, that when a purchaser has purchased tangible personal property or services sales tax free…”
Mobil-Teria Catering Co. v. Spradling, 576 S.W.2d 282 (Mo. 1978).
· cites it 4× “As required by § 144.210, RSMo 1969, appellant received notice that it would be taxed under Chapter 92, RSMo Supp.”
Gammaitoni v. Dir. of Revenue, 786 S.W.2d 126 (Mo. 1990).
· cites it 2× “The appellant may be held responsible for the tax under section 144.210. Exemption Certificates for Interstate Transactions The Administrative Hearing Commission found Videotech’s sales to customers located outside Missouri were exempt as sales in interstate commerce.”
Van Cleave Printing Co. v. Dir. of Revenue, 784 S.W.2d 794 (Mo. 1990).
· cites it 4× “The principal opinion purports to rely on the plain meaning of § 144.210, RSMo 1986. But that section simply does not say that the Director of Revenue may assess and collect taxes which are not lawfully owing, if the seller-taxpayer does not possess exemption certificates.”
Ceramo Co., Inc. v. Goldberg, 650 S.W.2d 303 (Mo. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 2× “In this case, the seller of the diesel oil did not remit tax to the State of Missouri because appellant provided him with an exemption certificate pursuant to § 144.210, RSMo (1978). - Therefore, appellant rendered itself liable for the tax if the claim of exemption is found to…”
Dillon v. Dir. of Revenue, 777 S.W.2d 326 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 3× “Section 144.210. When the auctioneer or other agent acting for a disclosed principal does not maintain evidence in his files, such as a sale bill or advertising, that the principal was disclosed, the auctioneer will be treated as acting for an undisclosed principal.”
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 144.210(1): 1 case
Overland Steel, Inc. v. Dir. of Revenue, 647 S.W.2d 535 (Mo. 1983).
“Section 144.210 RSMo 1978. Those claiming a sale exempt from tax must retain an exemption certificate as evidence of the exempt sale.”
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.