Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 144.480 (2026)

Failure to furnish a return, penalty

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

144.480. Failure to furnish a return, penalty. — Any person required under sections 144.010 to 144.510 to pay any tax, or required by sections 144.010 to 144.510 to make a return, keep any records or supply any information, who with intent to defraud willfully fails to pay such tax, make such return, keep such records or supply such information, at the time or times required by law, shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law and, upon conviction thereof, be fined not more than ten thousand dollars, or be imprisoned in the county jail for not more than one year or by not less than two nor more than five years in the state penitentiary or by both fine and imprisonment together with the cost of prosecution.

--------

(RSMo 1939 § 11442, A.L. 1941 p. 698, A.L. 1943 p. 1012, A.L. 1945 p. 1865, A.L. 1974 H.B. 1288)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1987–2016 · leading case: State v. Coor, 740 S.W.2d 350 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Coor, 740 S.W.2d 350 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 26× “Coor was charged with twenty-three (23) counts of failure to pay sales tax in violation of § 144.480, RSMo 1986. 1 Upon defendant’s motion, the trial court dismissed Counts One (I) through Twenty (XX) on the ground that § 144.”

Buchholz Mortuaries, Inc. v. Dir. of Revenue, 113 S.W.3d 192 (Mo. 2003). · cites it 4× “(Section 144.480, penalty for failure to pay tax, make return, keep records or supply information required by 144.”

Brittingham v. Gove-Ortmeyer, 174 F. Supp. 3d 1043 (E.D. Mo. 2016). · cites it 5× “Mo. Rev. Stat. § 144.480 . Plaintiffs principal argument with respect to whether there was sufficient probable cause under these statutes for his arrest and prosecution is he did not possess the intent to defraud DOR and Defendant knew this but did not include it in her…”

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.