71.610. Imposition of tax on business, when. — 1. No municipal corporation in this state shall have the power to impose a license tax upon any business, avocation, pursuit or calling, unless such business, avocation, pursuit or calling is specially named as taxable in the charter of such municipal corporation, or unless such power be conferred by statute.
2. Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, no municipal corporation shall impose a license tax upon any enterprise owned by a person aged eighteen years or younger.
Notes of Decisions
Nicolai v. City of St. Louis, 762 S.W.2d 423 (Mo. 1988).
· cites it 15× “Section 71.610, RSMo 1986, specifically prohibits a city from taxing businesses, avocations, callings or occupations not listed for that purpose in the city charter.”
Gen. Installation Co. v. Univ. City, 379 S.W.2d 601 (Mo. 1964).
· cites it 24× “The issues on this appeal require the construction of Section 71.610 (all statutory references are to RSMo 1959, V.”
Armco Steel v. City of Kansas City, 883 S.W.2d 3 (Mo. 1994).
· cites it 10× “Specifically, we find these ordinances invalid because of limitations placed on the City’s authority by § 71.610, RSMo. As a preliminary matter, we note considerable confusion among the parties concerning the nature and characterization of the “license fee.”
City of Odessa v. Borgic, 456 S.W.2d 611 (Mo. Ct. App. 1970).
· cites it 34× “o have power to enact and make all such ordinances and rules, not inconsistent with the laws of the state, as may be expedient for maintaining the peace and good government and welfare of the city and its trade and commerce; * * On the other hand it is submitted by defendants…”
St. Louis Ass'n of Realtors v. City of Ferguson, 499 S.W.3d 395 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 6× “Here, the trial; court found that section 71.610 limited Ferguson’s power to impose a license, tax on the business of renting residential property because section 94.”
Levinson v. City of Kansas City, 43 S.W.3d 312 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 5× “The Supreme Court found that the ordinances were invalid “because of the limitations placed on the City’s authority” under § 71.610, RSMo 1986, a statute in effect at the time of the enactment of the ordinances.”
City of Sunset Hills v. Sw. Bell Mobile Sys. Inc., 14 S.W.3d 54 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 3× “Section 71.610, RSMo (1994) limits a city’s power to impose a license tax: No municipal corporation in this state shall have the power to impose a license tax upon any business, avocation, pursuit or calling, unless such business, avocation, pursuit or calling is specially named…”
ABC Sec. Serv., Inc. v. Miller, 514 S.W.2d 521 (Mo. 1974).
· cites it 3× “Therefore, the fees are not charged as a revenue measure, and appellants do not claim that they are, The first question, although this issue is not presented by the parties, is whether the fees charged are within the prohibition of Section 71.610 which provides that “No…”
Ashworth v. City of Moberly, 53 S.W.3d 564 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).
“In this regard, the appellants cite § 71.610, 4 which provides: No municipal corporation in this state shall have the power to impose a license tax upon any business, avocation, pursuit or calling, unless such business, avocation, pursuit or calling is specially named as taxable…”
Airway Drive-In Theatre Co. v. City of St. Ann, 354 S.W.2d 858 (Mo. 1962).
· cites it 3× “Section 71.610 RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S., requires that the business or avocation to be taxed shall be “specially named as taxable”' in the charter or applicable statute.”
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.