Legal Opinion · Dissent

Cascio v. Beam

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided March 11, 1980No. 61038Published

1DissentSeiler, Judge

I respectfully dissent. I would reverse, holding that the director of revenue was entitled to enforce the summons for plaintiff’s records.

We are concerned in this case with three sections of the Sales Tax Act. The first is § 144.220 which establishes a two-year limitation on assessment of proposed additional sales tax except in two situations. Those are instances of fraudulent tax returns or refusal or neglect to make a return. With these two exceptions every notice of proposed additional assessment of sales tax must be mailed to the taxpayer within two years after the return was filed or…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. United Air Lines, Inc. v. State Tax CommissionSupreme Court of Missouri · 1964
  2. St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co. v. CrunkSupreme Court of Missouri · 1980

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API