American Healthcare Management, Inc. v. Director of Revenue

984 S.W.2d 496, 1999 Mo. LEXIS 6, 1999 WL 62425
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedFebruary 9, 1999
Docket80456
StatusPublished
Cited by47 cases

This text of 984 S.W.2d 496 (American Healthcare Management, Inc. v. Director of Revenue) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
American Healthcare Management, Inc. v. Director of Revenue, 984 S.W.2d 496, 1999 Mo. LEXIS 6, 1999 WL 62425 (Mo. 1999).

Opinion

MICHAEL A. WOLFF, Judge.

American Healthcare Management, Inc., and several other owners and managers of nursing homes (nursing home operators) bring this claim for a refund of sales taxes paid on utility services for the “domestic use” of their nursing home residents. The Administrative Hearing Commission upheld the director of revenue’s denials of the sales tax refund claims. We have jurisdiction. Mo. Const, art. V, section 3 and section 18; section 621.189, RSMo 1994. We affirm the commission’s decision in part and reverse in part and hold that utility services purchased for nursing home residents are exempt from sales tax for the entire year of 1994.

Facts

The residential facilities involved in this case are licensed in whole or in part as nursing homes. 1 During 1994, the nursing *497 home operators paid sales taxes on various utility services. These sales tax payments on various utilities were inconsistent. 2 Consequently, some of these nursing homes were paying sales tax on certain utilities and, at the same time, were exempt from paying sales tax on certain other utilities. In April 1995, the nursing home operators applied to the department of revenue for refunds of those paid sales taxes, contending that the utility services were exempt from sales tax under the domestic use exemption pursuant to section 144.030.2(23). The director of revenue denied their applications on the ground that their businesses operated as health care facilities.

On January 18,1996, Delmar Gardens Enterprise, Inc., d/b/a Delmar Gardens of Chesterfield, filed a complaint with the commission challenging the director’s denial of its claim for the sales tax refund. On January 19, 1996, American Healthcare Management, Inc., and other appellants filed a similar complaint challenging the director’s decision as to their sales tax refund claims. The cases were consolidated. Pursuant to a joint motion by the parties on July 18, 1996, the commission ordered that the claims of other petitioners be held in abeyance except the claims of American Healthcare Management, Inc., (in regard to Oak Forest North Nursing Home), McKnight Place Partnership I, L.L.P.; R. Development, Inc.; Reliant Care Four Seasons, L.L.C.; and Reliance Care Heritage, L.L.C. The claims held in abeyance apparently involve the same issue.

The Commission’s Decision

The commission entered its findings of fact and conclusions of law, holding that all of the appellants’ facilities were residential and that none of the appellants were entitled to a refund for periods prior to August 28, 1994. The commission also concluded that McKnight Place Partnership used 95 percent of its floor space for residential purposes and that it was entitled to a refund of 95 percent of taxes paid from August 28, 1994, through December 31,1994. The commission further determined that the remaining appellant nursing home operators were not entitled to any refund for taxes paid from August 28, 1994, because they were not apartments or condominiums and had not presented an appropriate means of allocating the utilities used by the individual residents. The nursing home operators petition this Court to review the commission’s findings and conclusions.

Nursing Homes as “Residential Apartments”

The nursing home operators argue that the commission erred when it ruled that the nursing homes were not “residential apartments” under section 144.030.2(23)(a) and, consequently, not entitled to the domestic use exemption. Section 144.030.2(23) was amended effective August 28,1994, providing a sales tax exemption for:

all sales of metered water service, electricity, electrical current, natural, artificial or propane gas, wood, coal or home heating oil for domestic use and in any city not within a county, all sales of metered or unmetered water service for domestic use;
(a) “Domestic Use” means that portion of metered water service, electricity, electrical current, natural, artificial or propane gas, wood, coal or home heating oil for domestic use and in any city not within a county, metered or unmetered water service, which an individual occupant of a residential premise uses for nonbusiness, noncommercial or nonindustrial purposes. Utility service through a single or master meter for residential apartments or condominiums, including service for common areas and facilities and vacant units, shall be deemed to be for domestic use. Each seller shall establish and maintain a system whereby individual purchases are determined as exempt or nonexempt; ....

*498 Section 144.030.2(23)(c) provides that individuals making purchases on behalf of occupants of residential apartments or condominiums shall have standing to apply to the director of revenue for credit or refund.

The commission correctly decided that the nursing homes are residential facilities but erred in ruling that the nursing homes are not residential apartments. The statute does not define “residential apartments.” The rules on construing revenue laws are in equipoise in this ease. Statutes imposing taxes are to be construed against the taxing authority and in favor of the taxpayer. Columbia Athletic Club v. Director of Revenue, 961 S.W.2d 806, 809 (Mo. banc 1998). However, statutes creating exemptions from taxation are strictly construed against the taxpayer. Hyde Park Housing Partnership v. Director of Revenue, 860 S.W.2d 82, 84 (Mo. banc 1993). In Hyde Park this Court stated: “[t]he primary rule of statutory construction is to ascertain the intent of the lawmakers by construing words used in the statute in their plain and ordinary meaning.” Id. Absent statutory definition, words used in statutes are given their plain and ordinary meaning with help, as needed, from the dictionary. Columbia Athletic Club, supra at 809. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (1993) defines an apartment as “a room or a set of rooms used as a dwelling and located in a private house, a hotel, or a building containing only such rooms or suites with necessary passageways and hallways,” or more simply, “a building made up of individual dwelling units.” An apartment building or apartment house is “[a] building containing a number of units and usually having conveniences (as heat and elevators) in common.” Id.

Nursing homes are residential facilities and are apartments under the common dictionary definition. These nursing homes have a number of dwelling units, and they usually have common conveniences, including heat and elevators. The nursing home residents, like those in apartments or condominiums, live in these units and use these utilities for domestic purposes.

Likewise, the commission’s decision granted a sales tax exemption to those portions of a complex designed for senior citizens that was residential only and denied the exemption for those areas of the facility where residents receive some level of nursing care. The economic reality is that sales taxes on utilities are ultimately passed on to the residents.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

SEBA, LLC v. Director of Revenue
Supreme Court of Missouri, 2020
Greer v. SYSCO Food Services
475 S.W.3d 655 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 2015)
Alberici Constructors, Inc. v. Director of Revenue
452 S.W.3d 632 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 2015)
Jefferson ex rel. Jefferson v. Missouri Baptist Medical Center
447 S.W.3d 701 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2014)
Gail & Darrell Mansfield v. Caleb Horner & John Horner
443 S.W.3d 627 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2014)
Balloons Over the Rainbow, Inc. v. Director of Revenue
427 S.W.3d 815 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 2014)
801 Skinker Boulevard Corp. v. Director of Revenue
395 S.W.3d 1 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 2013)
Schwab v. NATIONAL DEALERS WARRANTY, INC.
298 S.W.3d 87 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2009)
Nelson v. State
250 S.W.3d 386 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2008)
State Ex Rel. Burns v. Whittington
219 S.W.3d 224 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 2007)
United Pharmacal Co. of Missouri, Inc. v. Missouri Board of Pharmacy
208 S.W.3d 907 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 2006)
McNeil-Terry v. Roling
142 S.W.3d 828 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
984 S.W.2d 496, 1999 Mo. LEXIS 6, 1999 WL 62425, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-healthcare-management-inc-v-director-of-revenue-mo-1999.