Graceland College Center for Professional Development & Lifelong Learning, Inc. v. South Dakota Department of Revenue

2002 SD 145, 654 N.W.2d 779, 2002 S.D. LEXIS 162
CourtSouth Dakota Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 26, 2002
DocketNone
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 2002 SD 145 (Graceland College Center for Professional Development & Lifelong Learning, Inc. v. South Dakota Department of Revenue) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering South Dakota Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Graceland College Center for Professional Development & Lifelong Learning, Inc. v. South Dakota Department of Revenue, 2002 SD 145, 654 N.W.2d 779, 2002 S.D. LEXIS 162 (S.D. 2002).

Opinion

AMUNDSON, Retired Justice.

[¶ 1.] The South Dakota Department of Revenue (Department) assessed taxes against SkillPath, a division of Graceland College Center for Professional Development and Lifelong Learning, Inc. (Skill-Path), for seminars and services provided by the corporation in South Dakota. Skill-Path contested the certificate of assessment with the Secretary of Revenue, alleging it should be exempt from certain taxes. The Department upheld the certificate. SkillPath appealed the Department’s decision to circuit court, and the decision was affirmed. SkillPath appeals, and we affirm.

FACTS

[¶ 2.] SkillPath is a not-for-profit corporation that presents business seminars on computer training, secretarial skills and other business-related topics. The vast majority of SkillPath’s seminars are presented to employees whose fees are paid by their employers. These programs are presented by independent contractors, and are generally held in hotel meeting rooms.

[¶ 3.] In September of 1999, SkillPath underwent a sales and use tax audit, covering January 1996 through December 1998. On December 7, 1999, the Department issued a certificate of assessment in the amount of $31,989.19, plus interest, to SkillPath. 1 SkillPath contested the certificate. On April 14, 2000, a hearing was held before a hearing examiner. Evidence was presented regarding SkillPath’s marketing, the types of seminars it provides, and to whom the seminars are provided. The hearing examiner found that SkillPath’s seminars were entitled to a tax exemption. The hearing examiner found SkillPath’s courses qualified for tax exemption under SDCL 10-45-12.1 under SIC Manual 8234 (Data Processing Schools) and 8244 (Business and Secretarial schools). On appeal, the Secretary of Revenue reversed the hearing examiner’s decision. The Secretary of Revenue found that the services provided by Skill-Path were not exempt from taxation under SDCL 10-45-12.1. The Secretary of Revenue reasoned that SkillPath was not exempt as a “vocational school” or a “continuing education program.” The Secretary of Revenue found SkillPath’s seminars were more appropriately classified in SIC 8299 (Schools and Educational Services, Not Elsewhere Classified) or in the alternative SIC 7389 (Lecture Bureaus), and thus not exempt from tax.

[¶ 4.] SkillPath appealed the Secretary of Revenue’s final decision, and the circuit court affirmed. SkillPath appeals raising the following issue:

*782 Whether services offered by SkillPath are exempt from South Dakota sales tax pursuant to SDCL 10-45-12.1.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[¶ 5.] This Court clarified the standard of review for administrative appeals in Sopko v. C & R Transfer Co., Inc., 1998 SD 8, ¶¶ 6-7, 575 N.W.2d 225, 228-29.

Our standard of review, delineated in SDCL 1-26-36, requires us to give great weight to the findings and inferences made by the Department on factual questions. Helms v. Lynn’s, Inc., 1996 SD 8, ¶¶ 9-10, 542 N.W.2d 764, 766; Finch v. Northwest Sch. Dist. No. 52-3, 417 N.W.2d 875, 878 (S.D.1988). We examine agency findings in the same manner as the circuit court to decide whether they were clearly erroneous in light of all the evidence. In Matter of Northwestern Bell Tel. Co., 382 N.W.2d 413, 415 (S.D.1986). If after careful review of the entire record we are definitely and firmly convinced a mistake has been committed, only then will we reverse. Spitzack v. Berg Corp., 532 N.W.2d 72, 75 (S.D.1995) (citing Day v. John Morrell & Co., 490 N.W.2d 720, 723 (S.D.1992)); see also United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395, 68 S.Ct. 525, 541, 92 L.Ed. 746 (1948)(or-igin of definition). Questions of law, of course, are fully reviewable. Caldwell v. John Morrell & Co. 489 N.W.2d 353, 357 (S.D.1992); Egemo v. Flores, 470 N.W.2d 817, 820 (S.D.1991).

When reviewing statutes that impose taxes we have stated:

The question of whether a statute imposes a tax under a given factual situation is a question of law. Statutes which impose taxes are to be construed liberally in favor of the taxpayer and strictly against the taxing body. Statutes exempting property from taxation should be strictly construed in favor of the taxing power. The words in such statutes should be given a reasonable, natural, and practical meaning to effectuate the purpose of the exemption. Nat’l Food Corp. v. Aurora Cty. Bd. of Comm’rs, 537 N.W.2d 564, 566 (S.D.1995) (citing Thermoset Plastics, Inc. v. Dep’t of Revenue, 473 N.W.2d 136, 138-39 (S.D.1991)); see also Estate of He Crow v. Jensen, 494 N.W.2d 186,191 (S.D.1992) ( [stating] “[w]e construe administrative rules according to their intent as determined from the rule as a whole and other rules relating to the same subject.”)

Matter of Sales and Use Tax Refund Request of Media One, Inc., 1997 SD 17, ¶ 9, 559 N.W.2d 875, 877.

DECISION

[¶ 6.] SkillPath argues it should be exempt from taxation under our laws because it is either a “vocational school” or a “continuing education program.” Skill-Path contends that SDCL KM5-12.1 provides two sales tax exemptions for its seminars, “educational services” or “continuing education program.” SDCL 10-45-12.1 provides, in pertinent part:

The following services enumerated in the Standard Industrial Classification Manuel, 1987, as prepared by the Statistical Policy Division of the Office of Management and Budget, Office of the President are exempt from the provisions of this chapter: ... education services (major group 82) except schools and educational services not elsewhere classified (industry no. 8299); ... The following are also specifically exempt from the provision of this chapter: ...

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

Related

Northern Border Pipeline Co. v. South Dakota Department of Revenue
2015 SD 69 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 2015)
In Re the Appeal of Graceland College Center
195 P.3d 245 (Court of Appeals of Kansas, 2008)
Mauch v. South Dakota Department of Revenue & Regulation
2007 SD 90 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 2007)
Cooperative Agronomy Services v. South Dakota Department of Revenue
2003 SD 104 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2002 SD 145, 654 N.W.2d 779, 2002 S.D. LEXIS 162, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/graceland-college-center-for-professional-development-lifelong-learning-sd-2002.