#24616-a-BJORKMAN, Circuit Judge
2008 SD 34
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE
STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA
* * * *
SIOUX FALLS SHOPPING NEWS, INC. Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
AND REGULATION, Appellee.
* * * *
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
HUGHES COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA
* * * *
HONORABLE LORI S. WILBUR
Judge
* * * *
MARK V. MEIERHENRY and
PATRICK J. GLOVER of
Danforth and Meierhenry
Sioux Falls, South Dakota Attorneys for appellant.
HARVEY M. CROW
Department of Revenue and Regulation
Pierre, South Dakota Attorneys for appellee.
* * * *
CONSIDERED ON BRIEFS
FEBRUARY 11, 2008
OPINION FILED 4/23/08
#24616
BJORKMAN, Circuit Judge
[¶1.] Sioux Falls Shopping News, Inc., (Shopping News) appeals from the
circuit court's judgment affirming the decision of the South Dakota Department of
Revenue and Regulation (Department) that the money Shopping News paid for its
delivery and distribution services was subject to the use tax. We affirm.
FACTS
[¶2.] Shopping News publishes a weekly advertiser distributed free to the
general public in the Sioux Falls area. Shopping News contracts with drivers who
take the papers from Shopping News' Sioux Falls headquarters and deliver them to
drop-off points within a forty mile radius of Sioux Falls. Local carriers - boys and
girls between the ages of nine and twelve - pick up the publication at the drop-off
points and deliver it door-to-door to homes in the area.
[¶3.] Department conducted an audit of the Shopping News from June 2001
through May 2004. The audit resulted in an assessment of use tax on the fees
Shopping News paid the contract drivers and local carriers, in the amount of
$18,675.63, with an additional $4,704.25 assessed for interest.
[¶4.] Shopping News appealed Department's determination. 1 The
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that Shopping News failed to prove
entitlement to a statutory exemption from the tax, and entered a proposed decision,
which Department's Secretary adopted as Department's final decision. Shopping
News then appealed the ALJ's decision to the circuit court.
1. Department assessed other items as well, but Shopping News contests only
the tax related to contract driver and carrier labor.
#24616
[¶5.] After the circuit court affirmed the ALJ's decision, Shopping News
appealed to this Court. Shopping News raises four issues:
Whether the circuit court applied the correct standard of
review in affirming Department's decision.
Whether the taxpayer is exempt from the use tax because
the publication being delivered is a shoppers' guide.
Whether distribution and delivery services are exempt
from the use tax.
Whether local carriers are Shopping News' employees,
exempting their services from the use tax.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[¶6.] We examine agency findings in the same manner as the circuit court,
to decide whether, in light of all the evidence, the findings are clearly erroneous.
TAK Communications v. South Dakota Unemployment Ins. Div., 2007 SD 68, ¶ 8,
736 NW2d 840, 842. "'If after careful review of the entire record we are definitely
and firmly convinced a mistake has been committed, only then will we reverse.'" Id.
(citing Streeter v. Canton School Dist., 2004 SD 30, ¶ 14, 677 NW2d 221, 225).
Questions of law are fully reviewable. Sopko v. C & R Transfer Co., Inc., 1998 SD 8,
¶ 6, 575 NW2d 225, 228.
[¶7.] The standard of review regarding imposition of and exemption from
tax is well settled in South Dakota:
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,
-2-
#24616
and practical meaning to effectuate the purpose of the
statute.
Butler Machinery Co. v. South Dakota Dept. of Revenue, 2002 SD 134, ¶ 6, 653
NW2d 757, 759 (citations omitted) (quoting Robinson v. Muenster Associates, Inc.
v. South Dakota Dept. of Rev., 1999 SD 132, ¶ 7, 601 NW2d 610, 612.
ANALYSIS AND DECISION
ISSUE ONE
[¶8.] Whether the circuit court applied the correct standard of
review in affirming Department's decision.
[¶9.] Shopping News contends that the circuit court, in affirming
Department's decision, applied an incorrect standard of review, asserting that the
applicable standard is set out in Matter of Sales and Use Tax Refund Request of
Media One, 1997 SD 17, ¶ 9, 559 NW2d 875, 877. Under that standard, a reviewing
court was required to affirm an agency's findings if there was some "substantial
evidence" in the record to support them. Id. This Court no longer employs the
substantial evidence test, however. This change, first announced in Sopko, 1998 SD
8, ¶ 7, 575 NW2d at 228-29, reflects the legislature's amendment of SDCL 1-26-36,
which changed the standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence from
"unsupported by substantial evidence on the whole record" to "[c]learly erroneous in
light of the entire evidence in the record[.]"2 Therefore, this Court declines to adopt
2. The amendment was effective July 1, 1978. Sopko, 1998 SD 8, ¶ 7, 575
NW2d at 228. Our decision in Sopko, which addressed this statutory change,
was handed down ten months after Media One. In this case, the applicable
standard is of little significance, since neither party challenged the facts
found by the ALJ. Both parties argued the case on undisputed facts, and
treated the issues before the trial court as questions of law.
-3-
#24616
Shopping News' proposed standard of review and holds that the circuit court
applied the correct standard.
ISSUE TWO
[¶10.] Whether the taxpayer is exempt from the use tax because the
publication being delivered is a shoppers' guide.
[¶11.] Shopping News contends that the fees it paid to contract drivers and
local carriers for their distribution and delivery services are exempt from the use
tax by virtue of SDCL 10-46-9.1. We disagree.
[¶12.] Sales tax is imposed "upon the gross receipts of any person from the
engaging or continuing in the practice of any business in which a service is
rendered." SDCL 10-45-4. Any "service" as defined by SDCL 10-45-4.1 is taxable,
unless the service is specifically exempt from the provisions of SDCL ch 10-45.
SDCL 10-45-4. "Service" means "all activities engaged in for other persons for a fee,
retainer, commission, or other monetary charge, which activities involve
predominantly the performance of a service as distinguished from selling property."
SDCL 10-45-4.1.
[¶13.] SDCL 10-46-2.1 imposes a use tax on a person using services,
measured by the value of the services at the time they are rendered. This statute
imposes a tax upon the use of a service unless it is specifically exempted by SDCL
10-46-17.3. The use tax is intended to complement and supplement the sales tax.
Media One, 1997 SD 17, ¶ 20, 559 NW2d at 882. Prior to its repeal, SDCL 10-46-57
specifically imposed a use tax on the "privilege of the use of any transportation of
-4-
#24616
tangible personal property" if that transportation began and ended within South
Dakota. 3 SDCL 10-46-57 (1996 rev).
[¶14.] SDCL 10-45-12.1, incorporated in the use tax law by SDCL 10-46-17.3,
exempts specific services from the tax. SDCL 10-45-12.1 identifies "advertising
services" as exempt from the sales tax. SDCL 10-46-9.1 defines shoppers' guides as
free "advertising publications." 4
[¶15.] Shopping News contends that, because the legislature defined
shoppers' guides as advertising publications in SDCL 10-46-9.1, it intended to
exempt not only the income from the sale of advertising, but also the related cost of
delivering those services, including the fees Shopping News paid to its contract
drivers and delivery carriers.
[¶16.] We decline to adopt Shopping News' argument. The language of SDCL
10-46-9.1 specifically exempts from the use tax the costs of "[i]nk and newsprint
when used in the production of shoppers' guides[.]" It provides no relief from the
tax Shopping News now contests.
ISSUE THREE
[¶17.] Whether distribution and delivery services are exempt from
the use tax.
3. SDCL 10-46-57 was enacted by the 1996 legislature. See 1996 SDSessL ch
83, § 2. It was repealed effective July 1, 2004. See 2004 SDSessL ch 94, § 12.
4. More fully stated, SDCL 10-46-9.1 defines shoppers' guides to include
"advertising publications whose advertisements are solicited from the general
public and whose publications are for free distribution to the general public
and are published regularly at least once a month, consisting of printed
sheets containing advertising, bearing a date of issue, and devoted to
advertising of general interest."
-5-
#24616
[¶18.] Shopping News next argues that, even if SDCL 10-46-9.1 does not
exempt all costs related to advertising services, the money Shopping News pays for
contract drivers and delivery carriers is still exempt from the use tax because those
payments fall within the scope of advertising services exempted by SDCL 10-45-
12.1. Shopping News bears the burden of proving that the fees it pays to the
contract drivers and local carriers to distribute the publication fall within a
statutory exemption. Graceland College Center for Professional Development and
Lifelong Learning, Inc. v. South Dakota Department of Revenue, 2002 SD 145, ¶ 11,
654 NW2d 779, 783-84.
[¶19.] Some background is necessary to aid in the analysis of Shopping
News' assertion. SDCL 10-45-5.2 specifically subjects to taxation the services
enumerated in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual (SIC Manual) 1987. 5
Major group 73, business services, is among those services. We have previously
addressed this major group. "Major Group 73 of the SIC Manual 'includes
establishments primarily engaged in rendering services, not elsewhere classified, to
business establishments on a contract or fee basis. . .' Under SDCL 10-45-5.2
Major Group 73 in its entirety, is specifically subject to tax." Graceland College,
2002 SD 145, ¶ 18, 654 NW2d at 786. SIC Industry No. 7319 subjects to taxation
businesses that distribute advertising materials and provide delivery services on a
5. This manual is prepared by the Statistical Policy Division of the Office of
Management and Budget, Office of the President. SDCL 10-45-5.2. The SIC
Manual is divided into two-digit major groups and three-digit industry
groups or four-digit industry codes. Graceland College, 2002 SD 145, ¶ 7 n2,
654 NW2d at 783.
-6-
#24616
contract or fee basis to businesses engaged in advertising services. This category
includes those drivers and local carriers with whom Shopping News contracted.
[¶20.] SDCL 10-45-12.1 exempts certain services from tax. The greater part
of the statute employs the SIC Manual to define specified exempt services. The
statute also exempts services not listed in the SIC Manual, including "advertising
services."
[¶21.] Shopping News draws from our decision in Welcome Wagon Intern.,
Inc. v. South Dakota Dept. of Revenue, 318 NW2d 5 (SD 1982), to support its
claimed exemption. In Welcome Wagon, the circuit court upheld Department's
determination that Welcome Wagon's revenue was subject to the state sales and
service tax. On appeal, Welcome Wagon claimed that it was misclassified in a non-
advertising category by the federal government in the 1972 version of the SIC
Manual, but that the misclassification should not prevent it from receiving an
exemption under SDCL 10-45-12.1 since it was an advertising service specifically
exempt under SDCL 10-45-12.1. In reversing the circuit court, we stated:
Appellant argues that since 12.1's exemption for
advertising services is found in that part of the statute
which does not specifically refer to the SIC Manual, any
service, however or whether classified in the SIC Manual,
which can prove it is an advertising service should be
allowed the exemption for advertising services. We agree.
Welcome Wagon, 318 NW2d at 7.
[¶22.] Shopping News then points to SIC Industry No. 7319, "Advertising,
Not Elsewhere Classified," which lists, among other types of advertising, "shopping
news advertising and distributing service." Shopping News argues that this
language from the SIC Manual supplies the applicable definition of "advertising
-7-
#24616
services" contained in SDCL 10-45-12.1, thus entitling it to an exemption from the
use tax.
[¶23.] Shopping News' reliance on our language in Welcome Wagon is
misplaced. The import of our decision in that case is that the business service in
question must be analyzed to determine whether it fits within the sales tax
exemption for advertising services. The business service involved in Welcome
Wagon was the distribution of promotional literature to local residents – advertising
services which SDCL 10-45-12.1 exempts from the sales tax. The issue now before
the Court is different. Here the question is not whether Shopping News is an
advertising service subject to sales tax, but rather, whether the monies it paid to
contract drivers and local carriers is subject to the use tax. We have frequently held
that, when examining whether a tax applies, the focus belongs on the transaction,
not the character of the participants. Media One, 1997 SD 17, ¶ 17, 559 NW2d at
880; Cooperative Agronomy Services v. South Dakota Department of Revenue, 2003
SD 104, ¶ 8, 668 NW2d 718, 721.
[¶24.] ARSD 64:06:02:03 defines "advertising services" as "the business of
preparing advertisements for publication" in the media stated in the rule. The
administrative rule includes neither distribution nor delivery services within the
definition. Administrative rules have "'the force of law and are presumed valid.'"
Media One, 1997 SD 17, ¶ 11, 559 NW2d at 878 (citations omitted). Indeed, ARSD
64:06:02:03 provides an exemption from tax for "[s]ervices purchased by the agency
to assist it in completing a project for a current customer . . . if the service is an
integral and inseparable component of the ultimate service to its customer . . .."
-8-
#24616
To claim the exemption, the entity seeking it must supply "the service provider with
an exemption certificate." Id. (emphasis added). The record does not demonstrate
that Shopping News provided either the contract drivers or local carriers with an
exemption certificate, and Shopping News does not contend that the questioned
services fit within ARSD 64:06:02:03's exception.
[¶25.] Shopping News' claim that the services are exempt is further
weakened by the language of SDCL 10-46-9.1 itself, which provides those
publishing shoppers' guides with specific exemptions from the use tax for the cost of
ink and newsprint. The legislature's reference to these exemptions undercuts
Shopping News' claim that the legislature intended to exempt costs for services by
contract drivers and local carriers, which are not provided for in that statute.
[¶26.] Shopping News' argument would require us to adopt a definition of
advertising services the legislature did not enact. "This Court may not add
language to a statute by 'judicial legislation.'" Hannon v. Weber, 2001 SD 146, ¶ 5,
638 NW2d 48, 49 (citing Rabenberg v. Rigney, 1999 SD 71, ¶ 9, 597 NW2d 424, 426;
In re Estate of Gossman, 1996 SD 124, ¶ 11, 555 NW2d 102, 106 ("A court is not at
liberty to read into the statute provisions which the legislature did not incorporate,
or enlarge the scope of the statute by an unwarranted interpretation of its
language.")). If we were to adopt SIC Industry No. 7319's language as the definition
for advertising services contained in SDCL 10-45-12.1, we would be broadening the
exemption beyond the language the legislature employed.
[¶27.] Shopping News has not met its burden to show that it is entitled to an
exemption from the use tax for monies it paid to contract drivers and local carriers.
-9-
#24616
ISSUE FOUR
[¶28.] Whether local carriers are Shopping News' employees
exempting their services from the use tax.
[¶29.] SDCL 10-46-2.1 exempts from the use tax "services rendered by an
employee for the use of his employer . . .." Shopping News contends that the local
carriers - delivery boys and girls - are employees rather than independent
contractors, and thus, that the services rendered by them are exempt from the use
tax. The ALJ found that the boys and girls who delivered the Shopping News were
contract carriers, not Shopping News' employees. 6 In its appeal to the circuit court,
Shopping News did not challenge this finding. 7 It first raised the issue on appeal to
this Court. "Generally, this Court will not address issues raised for the first time on
appeal and not presented to the trial court." State v. Olson-Lame, 2001 SD 51, ¶ 6,
624 NW2d 833, 834. This rule exists to permit a trial court an opportunity to
correct claimed error, prior to appeal. State v. Henjum, 1996 SD 7, ¶ 13, 542 NW2d
760, 763. Since this issue was not raised below, this Court will not address it now.
[¶30.] The decision of the circuit court is affirmed.
[¶31.] BJORKMAN, Circuit Judge, for MEIERHENRY, Justice, disqualified.
6. The testimony to support this finding came from Shopping News' president,
K. A. Lesner, who acknowledged during cross examination that the local
carriers were not Shopping News' employees.
7. Indeed, in argument before the circuit court, Shopping News' counsel
informed the court there were no facts in dispute in the administrative
appeal, and that, "the kids are paid weekly, they are not employees at all."
Moreover, Shopping News did not provide Department's auditor with W-2
forms indicating that the carriers were its employees.
-10-
#24616
[¶32.] GILBERTSON, Chief Justice, and SABERS, KONENKAMP and
ZINTER, Justices, concur.
-11-