Men's World v. Commissioner of Revenue, No. Cv 99 0494630s (Mar. 27, 2002)

2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 3733, 31 Conn. L. Rptr. 697
CourtConnecticut Superior Court
DecidedMarch 27, 2002
DocketNo. CV 99 0494630S
StatusUnpublished

This text of 2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 3733 (Men's World v. Commissioner of Revenue, No. Cv 99 0494630s (Mar. 27, 2002)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Men's World v. Commissioner of Revenue, No. Cv 99 0494630s (Mar. 27, 2002), 2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 3733, 31 Conn. L. Rptr. 697 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002).

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
The plaintiff, Men's World, Inc.("Men's World"), appeals pursuant to General Statutes § 12-422 from a decision of the defendant, Commissioner of Revenue Services ("commissioner"), determining that the plaintiff is obligated to pay additional Connecticut sales tax for the period May 1, 1993 through April 30, 1996 ("audit period"). The issue in this appeal is whether a $3 damage waiver charge made with respect to rental of formalwear clothing during the audit period is properly excluded from the gross receipts in determining the rental cost of a CT Page 3734 tuxedo for the purposes of General Statutes § 12-412 (47). Section12-412 (47) exempts the sale of clothing for less than $50 from the Connecticut sales and use tax.

Men's World is a Connecticut corporation engaged in the business of renting formalwear clothing such as tuxedos under the trade name "Formal Elegance." Men's World sought to protect itself from losses incurred in the rental of formal clothing resulting from damage to the clothing from cigarette burns, stains and tears by the use of security deposits and damage waivers. Men's World required a security deposit on each clothing rental to cover malicious damage to the clothes or the failure to return the items rented. The security deposit is refunded by Men's World if the clothing is returned undamaged.

Men's World also offered its customers, during the audit period, the option of paying $3 as a form of self insurance to recoup the cost of non-malicious damage to the clothes. The reason that the $3 damage waiver is the issue in this case is because during the audit period, Men's World rented tuxedos at a price of $49.95, which was not subject to the sales tax because of the $50 statutory exemption on the sale or rental of clothing. During the audit period, the commissioner considered the $3 damage waiver cost as part of the rental of the tuxedo, thereby making the rental price for the tuxedo $52.95 and the rental fully taxable. Men's World denies that the $3 damage waiver charge is part of the rental of the tuxedo, but rather argues that it is a charge for insurance to the customer to avoid the risk of paying for unintentional damage to the clothes. By paying the $3 damage waiver, Men's World argues that a customer is not responsible for non-malicious damage such as burns or tears.

All but $145.50 of the $18,366.36 of tax set forth in the March 1, 1997 Billing Notice is attributable to disallowed exempt sales of clothing under $50 which the Department of Revenue Services contends constitute taxable rentals solely due to the inclusion in gross receipts of the separately stated $3 damage waiver charge. (Stipulation of Facts, para 6.)

The rental form used by Men's World (Plaintiff's Exhibit E) contains blank spaces for the listing of styles and sizes of coats, pants, shirts, accessories and shoes. Following the blanks for the styles and sizes is a space for the rental charge. Following the blank for the rental charge is a space for the computation of the sales tax on the total rental charge. Below the blank for the sales tax is a space for the amount of the rental of shoes, followed by a space marked "Misc." and a space marked "Damage Waiver," with "$3.00" preprinted in the damage waiver block. This form recites that the "DAMAGE WAIVER Covers only CT Page 3735 non-malicious damage, burn or tear." The form also has a provision for a security deposit. The Commissioner's auditor noted that the damage waiver applies to the tuxedo rental and not to the shoes that are separately stated on the form and rented for approximately $10 to $12. (See Plaintiff's Exhibit B.) Although the damage waiver provision has a preprinted $3 charge on the form, customers were not required to accept the damage waiver provision. Men's World has a form which recites "If customer declines offer of insurance waiver, please have him sign the release form: I understand by declining to purchase damage waiver I amfully responsible for any damage that may occur while the tuxedo is in my possession. This includes any burns, rips, tears or stains. I will also be responsible for returning said tuxedo with all jewelry and accessories intact. If tuxedo is returned in proper order, please mark release form and return it to the customer." (Plaintiff's Exhibit G). This form contains a space for a signature. A summary of invoices submitted by Men's World shows that twenty-two percent of their customers decline to pay the $3 damage waiver charge. (Plaintiff's Exhibit H.)

Men's World claims that the damage waiver is not included in gross receipts pursuant to the Commissioner's Letter ruling 90-70 issued December 20, 1990, which recites that pursuant to § 12-426-25 (c) of the Regulations of State Agencies, separately stated insurance charges by lessors of tangible personal property may be excluded from gross receipts. According to § 12-426-25 (c) of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies, "[g]ross receipts shall not include the cost of gasoline or insurance charges when such amounts are separately stated and the lessee has the option to either accept the lessor's insurance offer or to procure other coverage." The commissioner argues that the $3 damage waiver is not optional and does not constitute insurance, and therefore the damage waiver is subject to the sales tax as part of the gross receipts for the rental of a tuxedo.

The issues in this case are (1) whether the damage waiver is insurance; (2) whether the damage waiver charge is optional, and (3) whether the damage waiver is separate and apart from the sale or rental of the tuxedo. The commissioner does not contest that the rental of shoes is a separate sale or rental apart from the rental of the tuxedo, nor does the commissioner contend that the security deposit taken on every rental is part of the sale or rental of the tuxedo.

Under General Statutes § 12-412 (47), sales of articles of clothing or footwear costing less than $50 are exempt from the sales and use tax. General Statutes § 12-407 (2)(j) defines "sale" to include "the leasing or rental of tangible personal property of any kind whatsoever." Thus, in the rental of tuxedos where the total charges for the rental are less than $50, the rental falls within this exemption and is not subject CT Page 3736 to the Connecticut sales tax.

The issue in this case is resolved by considering whether the damage waiver contained in plaintiff's rental invoices is insurance. If the damage waiver is not insurance, it does not qualify for an exemption from the tax under § 12-426-25 (c) of the Regulations of State Agencies. If the damage waiver is not insurance, the question then is whether the sale was separate and apart from the sale or rental of the tuxedo.

General Statutes § 38a-1 (10) defines insurance as follows: "`Insurance' means any agreement . . . to provide indemnity for loss in respect to a specified subject by specified perils in return for a consideration. In any contract of insurance, an insured shall have an interest which is subject to a risk of loss through destruction or impairment of that interest, which risk is assumed by the insurer and such assumption shall be part of a general release to distribute losses among a large group of persons bearing similar risks in return for a ratable contribution or other consideration."

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

Related

State v. Continental Casualty Co.
879 P.2d 1111 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1994)
Houghton Mifflin Co. v. State Tax Commission
370 N.E.2d 441 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1977)
Doucette v. Pomes
724 A.2d 481 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1999)
Meyers Arnold, Inc. v. South Carolina Tax Commission
328 S.E.2d 920 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 3733, 31 Conn. L. Rptr. 697, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mens-world-v-commissioner-of-revenue-no-cv-99-0494630s-mar-27-2002-connsuperct-2002.