Printable Format79-3701. Title of act. This act shall be known as the "Kansas compensating tax."
History: L. 1937, ch. 375, ยง 1; May 30.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Sales and use taxes apply to purchases of equipment for municipal utility. City of Chanute v. Commission of Revenue and Taxation, 156 Kan. 538, 539, 542, 134 P.2d 672.
2. Purpose and history of act and amendments discussed. Natural Gas Pipeline Co. v. Commission of Revenue and Taxation, 163 Kan. 458, 459, 463, 183 P.2d 234.
3. History, intent and purpose of act discussed; exemptions; test to determine taxable transactions. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. State Commission of Revenue and Taxation, 168 Kan. 227, 228, 230, 231, 212 P.2d 363.
4. Telephone property purchased outside state held taxable; exemptions; act construed. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. State Commission of Revenue and Taxation, 168 Kan. 227, 228, 230, 231, 212 P.2d 363.
5. Act supplemental and complementary to Kansas retailers' sales tax act (79-3601 et seq.). Consumers Co-operative Ass'n v. State Comm. of Rev. and Taxation, 174 Kan. 461, 464, 467, 256 P.2d 850.
6. Purchases by private corporation for United States government; act inapplicable. General Motors Corporation v. State Comm. of Rev. & Taxation, 182 Kan. 237, 238, 320 P.2d 807.
7. Act constitutional; commerce clause of federal constitution not violated. Custom Built Homes Co. v. State Comm. of Rev. and Taxation, 184 Kan. 31, 32, 35, 41, 45, 334 P.2d 808.
8. Sales tax and compensating tax acts complementary, supplemental to one another; construed together. Custom Built Homes Co. v. State Comm. of Rev. and Taxation, 184 Kan. 31, 35, 41, 334 P.2d 808.
9. Sales tax statutes penal in nature; strictly construed in favor of taxpayer; not violative of commerce clause of U.S. Constitution. J. G. Masonry, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 235 Kan. 497, 500, 503, 508, 680 P.2d 291 (1984).
10. Cited; transfer of computer software to Bell for operating computerized electronic switching system as not subject to compensating tax examined. In re Tax Appeal of AT&T Technologies, Inc., 242 Kan. 554, 555, 749 P.2d 1033 (1988).
11. KDR's interpretation of 79-3606(kk) reasonable despite misreliance on "rule" published in information guide having no force or effect. In re Tax Appeal of Alsop Sand Co., Inc., 265 Kan. 510, 518, 962 P.2d 435 (1998).
12. BOTA decision affirmed that Intercard did not have substantial nexus within state to be subject to compensating use tax. In re Appeal of Intercard, Inc., 270 Kan. 346, 14 P.3d 1111 (2000).
13. Texas company responsible for payment of compensating use tax as its sales agents provided necessary nexus with Kansas. In re Tax Appeal of Family of Eagles, LTD, 275 Kan. 479, 66 P.3d 858 (2003).