Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 621.050 (2026)

Administrative hearing commission to hear appeals from director of revenue

✓ current as of May 2026

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

621.050. Administrative hearing commission to hear appeals from director of revenue — procedures — interest — burden of proof. — 1. Except as otherwise provided by law, any person or entity shall have the right to appeal to the administrative hearing commission from any finding, order, decision, assessment or additional assessment made by the director of revenue. Any person or entity who is a party to such a dispute shall be entitled to a hearing before the administrative hearing commission by the filing of a petition with the administrative hearing commission within thirty days after the decision of the director is placed in the United States mail or within thirty days after the decision is delivered, whichever is earlier. The decision of the director of revenue shall contain a notice of the right of appeal in substantially the following language:

If you were adversely affected by this decision, you may appeal to the administrative hearing commission. To appeal, you must file a petition with the administrative hearing commission within thirty days after the date this decision was mailed or the date it was delivered, whichever date was earlier. If any such petition is sent by registered mail or certified mail, it will be deemed filed on the date it is mailed; if it is sent by any method other than registered mail or certified mail, it will be deemed filed on the date it is received by the commission.

2. The procedures applicable to the processing of such hearings and determinations shall be those established by chapter 536; provided that, any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, in any action before the commission arising under chapter 144, a seller may prove that a sale is exempt from taxation under such chapter in accordance with proof admissible under the applicable rules of evidence. The administrative hearing commission shall maintain a transcript of all testimony and proceedings in hearings governed by this section, and copies thereof shall be made available to any interested person upon the payment of a fee which shall in no case exceed the reasonable cost of preparation and supply. Decisions of the administrative hearing commission under this section shall be binding subject to appeal by either party. In the event the taxpayer prevails in any dispute under this section, interest shall be allowed at the rate of six percent per annum upon the amount found to have been wrongfully collected or erroneously paid except for taxes paid under protest and held by the director in a special deposit which shall be paid as specified by section 144.700. In any proceeding before the administrative hearing commission under this section the burden of proof shall be on the taxpayer except for the following issues, as to which the burden of proof shall be on the director of revenue:

(1) Whether the taxpayer has been guilty of fraud with attempt to evade tax;

(2) Whether the petitioner is liable as the transferee of property of a taxpayer (but not to show that the taxpayer was liable for the tax); and

(3) Whether the taxpayer is liable for any increase in a deficiency where such increase is asserted initially after the notice of deficiency was mailed and a protest filed, unless such increase in deficiency is the result of a change or correction of federal taxable income required to be reported by the taxpayer, and of which change or correction the director of revenue had no notice or knowledge at the time he mailed the notice of deficiency.

--------

(L. 1978 S.B. 661, A.L. 1981 H.B. 129, A.L. 1986 S.B. 426, A.L. 1989 H.B. 143, A.L. 1991 H.B. 366 merged with S.B. 283)

(1980) Clear legislative intent of statute, effective August 13, 1978, providing that final decisions of director of revenue were reviewable by administrative hearing commission, altering previous law that final decisions were reviewable by circuit court, was to allow controversies which were in existence on August 13, 1978, in either hearing or review state, to continue through to final adjudication, including all principal appeals, under law as it existed prior to August 13, 1978. Labrayere v. Goldberg (Mo.), 605 S.W.2d 79.

(1980) Remand to department of revenue was proper for another evidentiary hearing and preparation of complete record before decision could be judicially reviewed; overruling State ex rel. Perno v. Quinn (A.),558 S.W.2d 329, State ex rel. Sansone v. Quinn (A.), 426 S.W.2d 917, and In re Village of Pleasant Valley (A.), 272 S.W.2d 8. Labrayere v. Goldberg (Mo.), 605 S.W.2d 79.

(1985) A petition for review was held to be timely filed when hand delivery was attempted on the thirtieth day following the mailing of tax assessment by director despite the fact that the thirtieth day fell on a Saturday and the offices of the commission were closed. Evergreen Lawn Service v. Director of Revenue (Mo. banc), 685 S.W.2d 829.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 47 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1985–2024 · leading case: Cmty. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Dir. of Revenue, 752 S.W.2d 794 (Mo. 1988).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Cmty. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Dir. of Revenue, 752 S.W.2d 794 (Mo. 1988). · cites it 22× “273, RSMo 1978 (transferred now section 621.050, RSMo 1986). A final question, raised by intervenors, is whether such refunds would violate article X, section 21, Constitution of Missouri, which prohibits the state from reducing its proportion of the costs of free public schools.”

Crum v. Missouri Dir. of Revenue, 455 F. Supp. 2d 978 (W.D. Mo. 2006). · cites it 22× “Such a mailing would have been no more likely to apprise Richards that his professional license was in jeopardy than were the notices sent by certified mail to his correct address.”

Rees Oil Co. & Rees Petroleum Prods., Inc. v. Dir. of Revenue, 992 S.W.2d 354 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 14× “of property of a taxpayer (but not to show that the taxpayer was liable for the tax); and (3) Whether the taxpayer is liable for any increase in a deficiency where such increase is asserted initially after the notice of deficiency was mailed and a protest filed, unless such…”

Hackman v. Dir. of Revenue, 771 S.W.2d 77 (Mo. 1989). · cites it 6× “Appellants sought review of the Director's final decision with the Administrative Hearing Commission (the Commission) pursuant to Section 621.050, RSMo 1986. The parties waived hearing and submitted the case on stipulated facts.”

Ins. Co. of PA v. Dir. of Revenue, 269 S.W.3d 32 (Mo. 2008). · cites it 6× “The legislature also can alter statutory deadlines by adding a “mailbox rule,” as it did in AHC-related sections 621.050 and 621.205. 9 Nothing in section 136.”

Shell Oil Co. v. Dir. of Revenue, 732 S.W.2d 178 (Mo. 1987). · cites it 4× “As permitted under § 621.050, RSMo 1986, Shell appealed the assessment to the Commission.”

Asarco, Inc. v. McNeill, 750 S.W.2d 122 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 3× “746-64, and currently appears as § 621.050, RSMo 1986. 4 . Section 161.337 was renumbered as § 621.”

Alberici Constructors, Inc. v. Dir. of Revenue, 452 S.W.3d 632 (Mo. 2015). · cites it 3× “See section 621.050, RSMo 2000; Hewitt Well Drilling & Pump Serv.”

City of Chesterfield v. Dir. of Revenue, 811 S.W.2d 375 (Mo. 1991). · cites it 2× “However, the City responds by arguing that § 621.050, RSMo 1986, gives the City a right of appeal from the Director of Revenue’s decision.”

House of Lloyd, Inc. v. Dir. of Revenue, 824 S.W.2d 914 (Mo. 1992). · cites it 2× “193, RSMo 1986 provides the applicable standard of review of a final decision of the AHC decided pursuant to § 621.050, RSMo 1986. We must affirm the decision of the AHC “if supported by the law and competent and substantial evidence on the whole record, and .”

Citizens Elec. Corp. v. Campbell, 696 S.W.2d 844 (Mo. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 4× “Appellant charged that the order of dismissal was in error because (1) appellant was denied a hearing pursuant to § 621.050, RSMo Supp.1984, and (2) by the order of dismissal, appellant was denied its right of due process to prove it is exempt from assessment of franchise taxes…”

State v. Elliott, 225 S.W.3d 423 (Mo. 2007). · cites it 2× “Section 621.050. In this case, the appeal was to be filed within 30 days after the notice of the deficiency issued under section 143.”

Show all 47 citing cases →

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 621.050(1) — 1 case

Crum v. Missouri Dir. of Revenue, 455 F. Supp. 2d 978 (W.D. Mo. 2006). “Such a mailing would have been no more likely to apprise Richards that his professional license was in jeopardy than were the notices sent by certified mail to his correct address.”

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.