American Multi-Cinema, Inc.// Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas And Ken Paxton, Attorney General of the State of Texas v. Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas And Ken Paxton, Attorney General of the State of Texas// Cross-Appellee, American Multi-Cinema, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided January 15, 2015·No. 03-14-00397-CV·Published

Opinion

ACCEPTED

03-14-00397-CV

3783530

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

1/15/2015 2:05:58 PM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

No. 03-14-00397-CV

FILED IN

3rd COURT OF APPEALS

3Jn tbe QCourt of §ppeals AUSTIN, TEXAS for tbe Z!rbirb 31 ubicial 119istrirt 1/15/2015 2:05:58 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE

§ustin, Z!rexas Clerk

American Multi-Cinema, Inc., Appellant/Cross-Appellee,

v.

Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas, and Ken Paxton, Attorney General of the State of Texas, Appellees/Cross-Appellants.

On Appeal from the 200th Judicial District Court Travis County, Texas

Cross-Appellants' Reply Brief

KEN PAXTON CHARLES K. ELDRED Attorney General of Texas State Bar No. 00793681 Assistant Attorney General CHARLES E. ROY Financial Litigation, Tax, and First Assistant Attorney General Charitable Trusts Division P.O. Box 12548

JAMES E. DA VIS Austin, Texas 78711-2548 Deputy Attorney General for Civil Litigation 512-475-1743 512-477-2348 (fax)

ROBERT O'KEEFE charles.eldred@texasattorneygeneral.gov Division Chief Financial Litigation, Tax, and Attorneys for Cross-Appellants Charitable Trusts Division

Oral Argument Requested

Table of Contents

Index of Authorities .................................................................................................. ii

Argu111ent .................................................................................................................... 1

1. AMC sells a license when it exhibits movies. A license is intangible property, which is excluded from the definition of goods. Therefore, the district court erred by finding that AMC sells "goods" when it exhibits inovies .................................................................................................... 3

2. A movie experience, whether characterized as ideas, images, sounds, memories, or otherwise, is not property. Therefore, it is not a "good" under the franchise tax ..................................................................................... 4

3. AMC's movie exhibitions are also services, and therefore not "goods"

under the franchise tax ..................................................................................... 6

4. The district court correctly found that AMC does not produce "goods"

defined by Tex. Tax Code § 171.1012(a)(3)(A)(ii) for sale ............................. 7

5. The 2007 amendment has no effect on the resolution of this appeal. ............. 9

6. The 2013 amendment has no effect on the resolution of this appeal. .......... 10

7. The evidence is legally insufficient to support the trial court's finding that AMC is entitled to include its exhibition costs in its cost-of- goods-sold deduction .................................................................................... 15

Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 17

Certificate of Co111pliance ....................................................................................... 18

Certificate of Service ............................................................................................... 18

Cross-Appellants' Reply Brief- Page i American Multi-Cinema, Inc. v. Hegar, et al.; 03-14-00397-CV

Index of Authorities

Cases

Calvert v. General Asphalt Co., 409 S.W.2d 935 (Tex. Civ. App.-Austin 1966, no writ) ..................... 11, 12

Combs v. Newpark Res., Inc., 422 S.W.3d 46 (Tex. App.-Austin 2013, no pet.) ........................................ 6

Public Utility Comm 'n of Texas v. City ofHarlingen, 311 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. App.-Austin 2010, no pet.) .............................. 14, 15

Rowan Oil Co. v. Texas Employment Comm 'n, 152 Tex. 607, 263 S.W.2d 140 (1953) ......................................................... 11

State v. Fidelity and Deposit Co. of Maryland, 223 S.W.3d 309 (Tex. 2007) .................................................................. 11, 13

Strayhorn v. Willow Creek Res., Inc., 161 S.W.3d 716 (Tex. App.-Austin 2005, no pet.) .................................... 12

Texas Health Ins. Risk Pool v. Southwest Service Life Ins. Co., 272 S.W.3d 797 (Tex. App.-Austin 2008, no pet.) .................................... 13

Tijerina v. City of Tyler, 846 S.W.2d 825 (Tex. 1992) ....................................................................... 12

Waste Management a/Texas, Inc. v. Texas Disposal Systems Landfill, Inc., 2012 WL 1810215 (Tex. App.-Austin May 18, 2012), aff'd in part, rev 'din part on other grounds, 434 S.W.3d 142 (Tex. 2014) ............... 13, 14

Williamson Pointe Venture v. City of Austin, 912 S.W.2d 340 (Tex. App.-Austin 1995, no writ) ............................. 12, 13

Cross-Appellants' Reply Brief - Page ii American Multi-Cinema, Inc. v. Hegar, et al.; 03-14-00397-CV

Statutes

TEX. TAX CODE§ 171. l 012 .............................................................................. passim TEX. TAX CODE§ 171. l 012(a) ................................................................................... 2 TEX. TAX CODE §171.1012(a)(3)(A)(i) ..................................................... 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 TEX. TAX CODE § 171. l 012(a)(3)(A)(ii) ........................................................ 2, 7, 8, 9 TEX. TAX CODE§ 171. l 012(a)(3)(A)(iii) ................................................................... 2 TEX. TAX CODE§ 171. l 012(a)(3)(B)(i) ..................................................................... 2 TEX. TAX CODE§ 171. l 012(a)(3)(B)(ii) .................................................................... 2 TEX. TAX CODE §l 71.1012(c) ................................................................................... 2

Other Authorities

Act of May 26, 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., ch, 1282, § 14, 2007 Tex. Gen. Laws 4282 (codified as Tex. Tax Code§ l 71.1012(a)(3)(A)(ii) ........................... 10

Act of May 27, 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., ch, 1232, § 10, 2013 Tex. Gen. Laws 3104 (codified as Tex. Tax Code§ 171.1012(t)) ................. 10, 11, 12, 13, 15

Cross-Appellants' Reply Brief- Page iii American Multi-Cinema, Inc. v. Hegar, et al.; 03-14-00397-CV

No. 03-14-00397-CV

Jf n tbe QCourt of ~ppeals for tlJe W:birb 3J ubicial 11Bistrict ~ttstin, W:exas

American Multi-Cinema, Inc., Appellant/Cross-Appellee,

v.

Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas, and Ken Paxton, Attorney General of the State of Texas, Appellees/Cross-Appellants.

On Appeal from the 200th Judicial District Court Travis County, Texas

Cross-Appellants' Reply Brief

To THE HONORABLE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS:

The question in this appeal is whether AMC sells goods when it exhibits a

movie. The answer is no. Because a movie-goer does not own any good as a result

of watching a movie, it necessarily follows that AMC does not sell its movie-goers

goods when it exhibits a movie. Consequently, the trial court erred by ruling that

AMC may include its exhibition costs (such as the costs of renting films from stud-

ies and the costs of operating auditoriums) in its cost-of-goods-sold deduction.

Cross-Appellants' Reply Brief- Page I American Multi-Cinema, Inc. v. 1-Jegar, et al.; 03-14-00397-CV

The undisputed material facts of this appeal are simple and common

knowledge. The question is how the franchise tax applies to those facts. The cost

of goods sold includes all direct costs of acquiring or producing the goods. TEX.

TAX CODE§ 171.1012(c) (West 2008). "Goods" means real or tangible personal

property sold in the ordinary course of business of a taxable entity. TEX. TAX CODE

§ 171.1012( a). The franchise tax defines "tangible personal property" as:

• personal property that can be seen, weighed, measured, felt, or touched or that is perceptible to the senses in any other manner(§ l 71.1012(a)(3)(A)(i));

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

American Multi-Cinema, Inc.// Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas And Ken Paxton, Attorney General of the State of Texas v. Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas And Ken Paxton, Attorney General of the State of Texas// Cross-Appellee, American Multi-Cinema, Inc., (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

American Multi-Cinema, Inc.// Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas And Ken Paxton, Attorney General of the State of Texas v. Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas And Ken Paxton, Attorney General of the State of Texas// Cross-Appellee, American Multi-Cinema, Inc. (American Multi-Cinema, Inc.// Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas And Ken Paxton, Attorney General of the State of Texas v. Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas And Ken Paxton, Attorney General of the State of Texas// Cross-Appellee, American Multi-Cinema, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland
223 S.W.3d 309 (Texas Supreme Court, 2007)
Rowan Oil Co. v. Texas Employment Commission
263 S.W.2d 140 (Texas Supreme Court, 1953)
Williamson Pointe Venture v. City of Austin
912 S.W.2d 340 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1996)
Calvert v. General Asphalt Company
409 S.W.2d 935 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1966)
Texas Health Insurance Risk Pool v. Southwest Service Life Insurance Co.
272 S.W.3d 797 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2008)
Public Utility Commission v. Cities of Harlingen
311 S.W.3d 610 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2010)
Strayhorn v. Willow Creek Resources, Inc.
161 S.W.3d 716 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2005)
Eckles v. City of Lubbock
846 S.W.2d 825 (Texas Supreme Court, 1992)