Bolivar Road News, Inc. v. Director of Revenue

13 S.W.3d 297, 2000 Mo. LEXIS 22, 2000 WL 291209
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedMarch 21, 2000
DocketNo. SC 81924
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 13 S.W.3d 297 (Bolivar Road News, 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
Bolivar Road News, Inc. v. Director of Revenue, 13 S.W.3d 297, 2000 Mo. LEXIS 22, 2000 WL 291209 (Mo. 2000).

Opinion

ANN K. COVINGTON, Judge.

Bolivar Road News, Inc., (Bolivar) seeks review of the decision of the Administrative Hearing Commission (AHC) that Bolivar is subject to sales tax and interest for the period of October 1, 1994, through September 30, 1997, on funds collected from sales of tokens for adult video booths because Bolivar operated “places of amusement and entertainment” within the meaning of section 144.020.1(2).1 The decision of the AHC is affirmed.

The standard of review is set forth in section 621.193, which requires the Court to uphold the decision of the AHC when its decision is “authorized by law and supported by competent and substantial evidence upon the whole record.” Sec. 621.193; see also Mo. Const, art. V, sec. 18; All Star Amusement, Inc. v. Director of Revenue, 873 S.W.2d 843, 844 (Mo. banc 1994).

The evidence reflects that Bolivar operated its business in two locations in the Springfield area. At each location, the word “Arcade” was printed in large letters on the front windows. Signs outside both locations read, “Adult Magazines, Novelties & Videos.” Both locations sold these items. At both locations there were partitioned booths in which customers paid to view portions of adult videos sold in the store. Bolivar sold the videos for $14.95 to $29.95. Customers were charged sales tax on the sales of the videos. According to Bolivar’s business manager, the video booths were intended to allow customers to preview the quality of a video before purchasing it. Bolivar did not limit the time a customer could spend in a video booth. Bolivar did not require any customer to purchase previewed videos.

At one of the business locations, there were thirteen operational booths. They were located in a room separate from the rest of the business. At the other location, there were eleven booths, five of which were located in a segregated area used exclusively for video booths and six of which were located in a separate room. Signs above the areas where the booths were located read, “Arcade.” Each booth measured thirty by thirty-six inches. Each contained a television set, a coin box for inserting tokens, and an unpadded, backless stool that rested against the side wall of the booth. Only one person was allowed in the booth at any time, and merchandise was not allowed in the arcade.

Each morning, the opening store clerk selected twelve videos for viewing in the booths. The twelve videos ran continuously throughout the day and automatically rewound. To view a video, a customer purchased tokens from a machine located in the arcade. A customer received four tokens for one dollar or twenty-four tokens for five dollars. Most customers purchased one dollar’s worth of tokens at a time. Each token allowed a customer to view portions of adult videos for forty-five seconds. When a customer inserted a token into the coin box in the viewing booth, the customer could switch channels on the television set and view any one of the twelve videos that were playing. A customer could not rewind or fast-forward any of videos. Viewing commenced wherever the film was in the continuous play [300]*300process. A customer could insert a maximum of fifteen tokens at one time. After the viewing time for the fifteen tokens expired, the television automatically turned off and a customer had to insert additional tokens to continue viewing. A customer had to wait ten to fifteen seconds before the television turned on to view more of the videos. The customer missed portions of the movie while inserting coins and waiting for the television to turn on. The manager of Bolivar testified that he did not know of anyone’s having purchased tokens for the purpose of viewing an entire video. Bolivar did not provide a refund for unused tokens. The purchase of tokens yielded neither a credit nor a discount on the subsequent purchase of a video.

The director of revenue conducted an audit of Bolivar’s records for the period of October 1, 1994, through September 30, 1997. It is not disputed that Bolivar paid sales tax on videos sold at its two business locations. Bolivar did not pay sales tax on its receipts from the video booths. In its bookkeeping, Bolivar recorded the video booth receipts under the heading, “Arcade Receipts.” The arcade receipts amounted to forty-six percent of Bolivar’s total gross sales for the thirty-six month audit period. At some point prior to the audit period, the company removed video games, pinball machines, and pool tables from each location because an attorney advised the company that, if it had fewer than fifteen coin-operated devices at each location, receipts from those devices would probably not be subject to sales tax.

At issue in this case is whether Bolivar is subject to sales tax on tokens sold for the viewing of adult videos at each of its business locations during the audit period, pursuant to section 144.020.2(1), because Bolivar’s business locations constituted places of amusement.

Section 144.020.1 provides in pertinent part:

1. A tax is hereby levied and imposed upon all sellers for the privilege of engaging in the business of selling tangible personal property or rendering taxable service at retail in this state. The rate of tax shall be as follows:
[[Image here]]
(2) A tax equivalent to four percent of the amount paid for admission and seating accommodations or fees paid to, or in any place of amusement, entertainment or recreation, games and athletic events;

The director of revenue promulgated 12 CSR 10-3.176,2 which interprets the sales tax law as it pertains to fees paid in places of amusement or • entertainment. The regulation defines a place of amusement as “any location in which amusement activities comprise more than a de minim-is portion of the business activities of the location....” 12 CSR 10-3.176.1(A). The regulation is “a proper interpretation of section 144.020.1(2),” as it pertains to coin-operated amusement devices. L & R Distrib. Co., Inc. v. Missouri Dept. of Revenue, 648 S.W.2d 91, 96 (Mo. banc 1983).

Bolivar argues that it did not operate places of amusement or entertainment but, rather, sold adult videos, magazines, books, and novelty items. . Bolivar alleges that it operated the video booths to allow customers to preview videos available for sale. Bolivar contends that the video booths did not provide amusement for customers, and that, if they did, amusement activities did not comprise more that a de minimis portion of Bolivar’s total business activities during the audit period.

The elements required for taxa-bility under section 144.020.1(2) are: (1) an amount or fee is paid for admission or seating; (2) the amount or fee is paid to or in a place; and (3) the place is one “of amusement, entertainment or recreation .... ” See sec. 144.020.1(2); Columbia [301]*301Athletic Club v. Director of Revenue, 961 S.W.2d 806, 808 (Mo. banc 1998). The parties do not dispute the first or second elements.

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

Related

In Re Bruce L. Jamison v. the State of Texas
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2024
Miss Dianna's School of Dance, Inc. v. Director of Revenue
478 S.W.3d 405 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 2016)
Loring v. Planning & Zoning Commission
950 A.2d 494 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 2008)
Kansas City Royals Baseball Corp. v. Director of Revenue
32 S.W.3d 560 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
13 S.W.3d 297, 2000 Mo. LEXIS 22, 2000 WL 291209, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bolivar-road-news-inc-v-director-of-revenue-mo-2000.