Magellan Pipeline Co. v. Dep't of Revenue & Regulation , 2013 S.D. 68 ( 2013 )

#26553-r-DG
2013 S.D. 68
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE
STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA
****
MAGELLAN PIPELINE COMPANY,
LP LIC. NO. 1011-0693-ST, Petitioner and Appellant,
v.
SOUTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT
OF REVENUE AND REGULATION, Respondent and Appellee,
****
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
MINNEHAHA COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA
****
THE HONORABLE WILLIAM J. SRSTKA, JR.
Retired Judge
****
JAMES E. MOORE
MATTHEW P. BOCK of
Woods, Fuller, Shultz & Smith, PC
Sioux Falls, South Dakota Attorneys for petitioner
and appellant.
ROSA YAEGER
South Dakota Department of
Revenue and Regulation
Pierre, South Dakota Attorneys for respondent
and appellee.
****
CONSIDERED ON BRIEFS
ON MAY 20, 2013
OPINION FILED 09/04/13
#26553
GILBERTSON, Chief Justice
[¶1.] Magellan Pipeline Company, LP (Magellan) appeals a sales tax
assessment by the Department of Revenue and Regulation (the Department) on
additive injection and equipment calibration pipeline services. The Hearing
Examiner, Department Secretary, and circuit court found that Magellan’s additive
injection and equipment calibration pipeline services are non-exempt from tax
under SDCL 10-45-12.1. We reverse.
FACTS
[¶2.] We rely on the parties’ stipulated facts. Magellan is a Delaware
limited partnership headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Magellan’s principal
business is the transportation of refined petroleum products. Magellan owns and
operates a refined petroleum products pipeline system, which covers a 13-state
area, including South Dakota. Magellan has refined petroleum terminals in both
Watertown and Sioux Falls.
[¶3.] The refined petroleum products originate from direct connections to
refineries and interconnections with other interstate pipelines. For the most part,
Magellan’s customers own the refined petroleum products transported through
Magellan’s pipeline. Magellan charges its customers a tariff rate for transporting
refined petroleum products through its pipeline. When the refined petroleum
products enter the terminal in Sioux Falls or Watertown, the products are either
-1-
#26553
stored onsite or delivered to Magellan customers through a rack. 1 Magellan also
charges its customers for services Magellan provides at its terminals. Those
services include: ethanol and biodiesel unloading and loading, additive injections,
custom blending, laboratory testing, data services, other system services, and
product storage. Additives are injected into the refined petroleum at the rack,
which is the time Magellan customers take delivery of their products from a
Magellan terminal. Some additives are mandated by law (e.g., gasoline detergent,
diesel lubricity additive, and diesel dye) whereas others are non-mandatory (e.g., jet
deicer, diesel detergent, and diesel cold flow improver).
[¶4.] In September 2009, the Department notified Magellan that it would
begin an audit in March 2010. The audit would cover the period of September 2006
through September 2009. Later, the Department and Magellan agreed to extend
the audit period through January 2010. Department Auditor Angela Bormann
conducted the audit at Magellan headquarters in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Following the
audit, the Department issued a certificate of assessment (COA) against Magellan,
alleging a balance due of $241,274.52. Of the amount alleged to be owed,
$190,268.50 was attributed to unpaid sales and use tax, and $51,006.02 was
attributed to interest. The COA largely alleged unpaid sales tax for certain pipeline
services, including charges related to additive injections.
[¶5.] Magellan notified the Department that it was contesting the total
assessment but, under protest, paid the full tax assessment of $190,268.50.
1. A rack is a mechanism capable of delivering petroleum products into a means
of transport other than the pipeline, such as a tanker truck trailer or a
railcar.
-2-
#26553
Initially Magellan requested a hearing. Later, however, the parties agreed to forgo
a hearing and submitted stipulated facts for the Hearing Examiner’s review. The
primary issue before the Hearing Examiner was whether the fees Magellan charged
for additive injections and equipment calibration pipeline services were subject to
South Dakota sales tax. The Hearing Examiner entered a proposed decision
affirming the Department’s tax assessment of Magellan. The Secretary of the
Department adopted the Hearing Examiner’s decision in full.
[¶6.] Magellan appealed to the circuit court. The circuit court found that
Magellan’s additive injection and equipment calibration pipeline services were
subject to South Dakota sales tax under SDCL 10-45-4, concluding that SDCL 10-
45-12.1 exempts only pipeline transportation services. On appeal we consider
whether Magellan’s additive injection and equipment calibration pipeline services
are exempt from South Dakota’s sales tax under SDCL 10-45-12.1.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[¶7.] “Whether a statute imposes a tax under a given factual situation is a
question of law [reviewed de novo] and thus no deference is given to any conclusion
reached by the Department of Revenue or the circuit court.” TRM ATM Corp. v.
S.D. Dep’t of Revenue & Regulation, 2010 S.D. 90, ¶ 3, 793 N.W.2d 1, 3 (quoting
S.D. Dep’t of Revenue v. Sanborn Tel. Coop., 455 N.W.2d 223, 225 (S.D. 1990)); see
also Mauch v. S.D. Dep’t of Revenue & Regulation, 2007 S.D. 90, ¶ 8, 738 N.W.2d
537, 540. Further, “[s]tatutory interpretation and application are questions of law,
and are reviewed by this Court under the de novo standard of review.” Pourier v.
S.D. Dep’t of Revenue & Regulation, 2010 S.D. 10, ¶ 8, 778 N.W.2d 602, 604.
-3-
#26553
ANALYSIS AND DECISION
[¶8.] Magellan argues that its additive injection and equipment calibration
pipeline services are exempt from South Dakota’s sales tax under SDCL 10-45-12.1.
The critical inquiry is what the South Dakota legislature intended by exempting the
services of “pipe lines” in SDCL 10-45-12.1. SDCL 10-45-12.1 provides that “[t]he
following services enumerated in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual . . .
are exempt from the provisions of this chapter: . . . pipe lines, except natural gas
(major group 46)[.]” SDCL 10-45-12.1.
[¶9.] “When interpreting a statute, we ‘begin with the plain language and
structure of the statute.’” In re Pooled Advocate Trust, 2012 S.D. 24, ¶ 32, 813
N.W.2d 130, 141 (quoting State ex rel. Dep’t of Transp. v. Clark, 2011 S.D. 20, ¶ 10,
798 N.W.2d 160, 164). “When the language in a statute is clear, certain, and
unambiguous, there is no reason for construction, and this Court’s only function is
to declare the meaning of the statute as clearly expressed.” Id. (quoting Clark, 2011
S.D. 20, ¶ 5, 798 N.W.2d at 162). Further, “‘[w]hile every word of a statute must be
presumed to have been used for a purpose, it is also the case that every word
excluded from a statute must be presumed to have been excluded for a purpose.’”
Wheeler v. Farmers Mut. Ins. Co. of Neb., 2012 S.D. 83, ¶ 21, 824 N.W.2d 102, 109
(citation omitted).
[¶10.] “Statutes exempting property from taxation should be strictly
construed in favor of the taxing power.” Graceland Coll. Ctr. for Prof’l Dev. &
Lifelong Learning, Inc. v. S.D. Dep’t of Revenue, 2002 S.D. 145, ¶ 5, 654 N.W.2d 779,
782 (quoting Matter of Sales & Use Tax Refund Request of Media One, Inc., 1997
-4-
#26553
S.D. 17, ¶ 9, 559 N.W.2d 875, 877). “The words in such statutes should be given a
reasonable, natural, and practical meaning to effectuate the purpose of the
exemption.” Id. (citation omitted). Further, the taxpayer “carries the burden of
proving that [it] fall[s] within the exemption.” Id. ¶ 12.
[¶11.] The Department asks this Court to find that SDCL 10-45-12.1
differentiates between Magellan’s pipeline transportation services and its additive
injection and equipment calibration pipeline services. If we were to interpret SDCL
10-45-12.1 to exempt pipeline transportation services and not additive injection and
equipment calibration pipeline services, it would require us to read the word
transportation into the statute. A plain reading of the statutory text, however,
makes clear that SDCL 10-45-12.1 does not include the word “transportation” when
referencing the “pipe lines” exemption.
[¶12.] Also helpful in assessing the Legislature’s intent in SDCL 10-45-12.1 is
the Legislature’s treatment of pipe lines transporting natural gas. SDCL 10-45-12.1
provides an exemption for the services of “pipe lines, except natural gas[.]” SDCL
10-45-67 governs pipe lines transporting natural gas. It provides: “[t]he provision of
natural gas transportation services by a pipeline is exempted from the provisions of
this chapter and from the computation of the tax imposed by this chapter.”
(Emphasis added.) If the Legislature had intended that SDCL 10-45-12.1 also be
limited to petroleum pipeline transportation services, it would have limited the
petroleum pipeline services exemption as it did for natural gas pipelines in SDCL
10-45-67. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court erred in concluding that the
additive injection and equipment calibration pipeline services provided by Magellan
-5-
#26553
were not the type of services the legislature intended to be exempt from tax under
SDCL 10-45-12.1.
[¶13.] We also note that an entity seeking an exemption for “pipe lines”
services under SDCL 10-45-12.1 must be eligible for the exemption. That inquiry
requires reference to the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Manual, which is
directly referenced within SDCL 10-45-12.1. Graceland, 2002 S.D. 145, ¶ 7, 654
N.W.2d at 783 (stating that “SDCL 10-45-12.1 adopts the classification scheme set
forth in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual (SIC) making it necessary to
examine the SIC Manual in order to determine the proper classification”); Sioux
Falls Shopping News v. Dep’t of Revenue & Regulation, 2008 S.D. 34, ¶ 20, 749
N.W.2d 522, 526 (stating that “[t]he greater part of [SDCL 10-45-12.1] employs the
SIC Manual to define specified exempt services”).
[¶14.] The Department classifies Magellan under industry number 4613
(refined petroleum pipelines), which falls within Major Group 46 in the SIC
Manual. The portion of the SIC Manual that addresses Major Group 46 is titled
“pipelines, except natural gas.” This portion of the SIC Manual defines a refined
petroleum pipeline as an: “[e]stablishment[] primarily engaged in the pipeline
transportation of refined products of petroleum, such as gasoline and fuel oil.”
Office of Mgmt. & Budget, Standard Industrial Classification Manual 279 (1987).
Because Magellan is an establishment primarily engaged in the pipeline
transportation of refined petroleum products, it is eligible to receive the benefit of
tax exemptions under SDCL 10-45-12.1. We hold that SDCL 10-45-12.1 exempts
-6-
#26553
additive injection and equipment calibration pipeline services, and that Magellan is
eligible for such exemptions because of its Major Group 46 status.
[¶15.] The Department argues that Magellan’s position that the additive
injection and equipment calibration pipeline services are exempt from tax under
SDCL 10-45-12.1 is contrary to our prior holdings in which we have stated that:
“when examining whether a tax applies, the focus belongs on the transaction, not
the character of the participants.” Sioux Falls Shopping News, 2008 S.D. 34, ¶ 23,
749 N.W.2d at 527 (citation omitted). The Department’s argument is misplaced.
The types of transactions at issue in this appeal, additive injection and equipment
calibration services, squarely fall within the exemption for “pipe lines” services as
set forth in SDCL 10-45-12.1.
[¶16.] The parties disagree as to how our past case law should be utilized in
deciding this dispute. For example, both parties rely on Mauch v. S.D. Dep’t of
Revenue & Regulation, 2007 S.D. 90, 738 N.W.2d 537, to support their differing
arguments. In Mauch, this Court reversed the Department’s assessment of tax
against the services of an engineer. Id. ¶ 24. The Court found that the engineer’s
educational background and years of experience qualified him to provide
“engineering services” as required under the exemption, even though he did not
hold a professional license. Id. ¶ 22. In reversing the portion of the tax assessment
related to engineering services, this Court found, in part, that the Department erred
in incorporating other, unrelated statutes, which defined professional engineer. Id.
¶¶ 12-20. Like our ruling in Mauch, we will not apply text that is absent from a
-7-
#26553
particular statute. Accordingly, we decline the Department’s request to read-in the
term transportation to SDCL 10-45-12.1.
[¶17.] The parties also disagree as to the proper application of Watertown
Coop. and the Court’s use of the “predominant activity test” in that case. See
Watertown Coop. Elevator Ass’n v. S.D. Dep’t of Revenue, 2001 S.D. 56, 627 N.W.2d
167. Watertown Coop. involved a use tax assessment against Watertown Coop. for
fees it paid for the services of crop production specialists (production specialists).
Id. ¶ 5. The production specialists were employed directly by product distributors,
however, Watertown Coop.’s practice was to “reimburse the distributors for all
actual expenses of the production specialists, including salary, social security,
income tax withholding, workers’ compensation, equipment leases, travel, and other
incidental expenses.” Id. ¶ 2. The ranchers and farmers purchasing agronomy
products from Watertown Coop. did not pay a direct fee for product specialist
services, but Watertown Coop. built the cost of those services into the purchase
price of the agronomy products. Id. ¶ 3. Tax related to the sale of the agronomy
products themselves was not at issue because the sale of agronomy products was
tax exempt. Id. ¶ 11.
[¶18.] Watertown Coop. argued that the services were “an ‘inextricable part’
of the sale of exempt agronomy products.” Id. The Court disagreed, concluding that
use tax should be applied because the services involved the performance of services,
rather than the sale of agronomy products. Id. ¶ 14. The Court clarified its use of
the predominant activity test by noting that: “[h]ere, the dispositive transaction
occurred with the distributors and [Watertown Coop.], not with the ultimate sale of
-8-
#26553
agronomy products or in providing production specialist services to farmers and
ranchers.” Id. ¶ 12.
[¶19.] In Watertown Coop., the Court used the predominant activity to clarify
that the services being provided were between the taxpayer, Watertown Coop., and
the distributors, rather than Watertown Coop. and the farmers and ranchers (who
were the actual recipients of the agronomy products, which qualified for the
exemption). Id. ¶¶ 12-14. The case before us is distinguishable from Watertown
Coop. because that case involved the imposition of tax when the taxpayer attempted
to attach services that were separate and distinct from the actual tax exemption.
Here, it is not necessary to apply the predominant activity test because of our
finding that additive injection and equipment calibration pipeline services squarely
fall within the pipeline services tax exemption provided in SDCL 10-45-12.1.
Watertown Coop. required this Court to utilize the predominant activity test to
distinguish the relationships among three separate parties: the taxpayer, its
customer, and its distributor. Our case is distinctly different in that the services at
hand involve only two parties: Magellan and its customers. 2
CONCLUSION
[¶20.] Under the plain language of SDCL 10-45-12.1, Magellan’s additive
injection and equipment calibration pipeline services are exempt from sales tax.
We reverse.
2. Because we find that Magellan’s additive injection and equipment calibration
pipeline services are tax exempt under SDCL 10-45-12.1, we need not reach
the issue of interest assessed against Magellan on the COA.
-9-
#26553
[¶21.] SEVERSON, Justice, concurs.
[¶22.] ZINTER, Justice, and KERN, Circuit Court Judge, concur specially.
[¶23.] KONENKAMP, Justice, dissents.
[¶24.] KERN, Circuit Court Judge, sitting for WILBUR, Justice, disqualified.
ZINTER, Justice (concurring specially).
[¶25.] SDCL 10-45-12.1 is a lengthy listing of sales tax exemptions. The
Legislature used different language in the statute to describe two types of
exemptions. In the first, the Legislature exempted specifically described “services”
performed by “establishments” referenced in the SIC. Representative examples
include “health services,” “educational services,” “social services,” “agricultural
services,” “forestry services,” and “trucking and courier services.” See SDCL 10-45-
12.1. 3 In the second, the Legislature more broadly exempted entire
3. SDCL 10-45-12.1 provides:
The following services enumerated in the Standard Industrial
Classification Manual, 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:
health services (major group 80); educational services (major
group 82) except schools and educational services not elsewhere
classified (industry no. 8299); social services (major group 83);
agricultural services (major group 07) except veterinarian
services (group no. 074) and animal specialty services, except
veterinary (industry no. 0752); forestry services (group no. 085);
radio and television broadcasting (group no. 483); railroad
transportation (major group 40); local and suburban passenger
transportation (group no. 411) except limousine services; school
buses (group no. 415); trucking and courier services, except air
(group no. 421) except collection and disposal of solid waste;
farm product warehousing and storage (industry no. 4221);
(continued . . .)
-10-
#26553
“establishments” or “industries.” Representative examples of those exemptions
________________________
(. . . continued)
establishments primarily engaged in transportation on rivers
and canals (group no. 444); establishments primarily engaged in
air transportation, certified carriers (group no. 451);
establishments primarily engaged in air transportation,
noncertified carriers (group no. 452) except chartered flights
(industry no. 4522) and airplane, helicopter, balloon, dirigible,
and blimp rides for amusement or sightseeing; pipe lines, except
natural gas (major group 46); arrangement of passenger
transportation (group no. 472); arrangement of transportation of
freight and cargo (group no. 473); rental of railroad cars (group
no. 474); water supply (industry no. 4941); sewerage systems
(industry no. 4952); security brokers, dealers and flotation
companies (group no. 621); commodity contracts brokers and
dealers (group no. 622); credit counseling services provided by
individual and family social services (industry no. 8322);
construction services (division C) except industry no. 1752 and
locksmiths and locksmith shops; consumer credit reporting
agencies, mercantile reporting agencies, and adjustment and
collection agencies (group no. 732), if the debt was incurred out-
of-state and the client does not reside within the state. The
following are also specifically exempt from the provisions of this
chapter: financial services of institutions subject to tax under
chapter 10-43 including loan origination fees, late payment
charges, nonsufficient fund check charges, stop payment
charges, safe deposit box rent, exchange charges, commission on
travelers checks, charges for administration of trusts, interest
charges, and points charged on loans; commissions earned or
service fees paid by an insurance company to an agent or
representative for the sale of a policy; services of brokers and
agents licensed under Title 47; the sale of trading stamps;
rentals of motor vehicles as defined by § 32-5-1 leased under a
single contract for more than twenty-eight days; advertising
services; services provided by any corporation to another
corporation which is centrally assessed having identical
ownership and services provided by any corporation to a wholly
owned subsidiary which is centrally assessed; continuing
education programs; tutoring; vocational counseling, except
rehabilitation counseling; and motion picture rentals to a
commercially operated theater primarily engaged in the
exhibition of motion pictures.
(Emphasis added.)
-11-
#26553
include “establishments” primarily engaged in river transportation,
“establishments” primarily engaged in air transportation, certain centrally assessed
corporations, water supply and sewage system “industr[ies],” security and
commodity “brokers” and “dealers,” and “credit and collection agencies.” See id.
[¶26.] The statutory language at issue in this case is of the second type
exempting pipeline establishments. See id. (exempting “pipe lines, except natural
gas (major group 46)”). Unlike the first exemption for specifically described
services, the Legislature did not limit the “pipe line” exemption to any particularly
described service provided by pipelines. See id. Because the Legislature chose to
exempt pipeline establishments rather than any particular service they provide, 4
and because there is no dispute that Magellan’s economic activity falls within major
group 46 (pipeline establishments), Magellan is entitled to the exemption for the
pipeline services it provides. Further, because the Department does not dispute
4. The dissent opines that there are not two types of exemptions, suggesting
that there is no establishment exemption. The dissent reasons that “the
Legislature simply took the language used by the SIC and chose which
services it intended to allow service exemptions.” See Dissent ¶ 39. But this
disregards the clear difference in the statutory language describing each
exemption. Moreover, the SIC Manual “was developed for use in the
classification of establishments by the type of activity in which they are
engaged[.]” SIC Manual at 11 (emphasis added). And establishments are
defined as “an economic unit . . . where business is conducted or where
services or industrial operations are performed.” Id. at 12 (emphasis added).
Therefore, the SIC Manual also recognizes the distinction between a business
establishment and the services it may provide. Because the SIC Manual
incorporates this distinction, one cannot simply sweep aside the Legislature’s
decision to in some cases use language exempting entire establishments
without qualification, but in other cases use language limiting the exemption
to a particular service provided by a classified establishment.
-12-
#26553
that additive injection and equipment calibration are services provided by pipelines,
those services are exempt.
[¶27.] Had the Legislature intended to exempt only the “transportation”
services provided by pipelines, the Legislature would have used the word
“transportation” in a specifically described service exemption, as it did throughout
most of SDCL 10-45-12.1. Any question about legislative intent is resolved by
examining the Legislature’s treatment of other establishments.
[¶28.] The Legislature’s comparative treatment of petroleum and natural gas
pipelines is especially significant. In contrast to the establishment exemption
provided for petroleum pipelines, the Legislature used the particularly described
service exemption for natural gas pipelines. As previously noted, SDCL 10-45-12.1
has no language limiting the exemption for petroleum pipelines as long as they are
classified in “major group 46.” But when the Legislature decided to exempt natural
gas pipelines, it used the particularly described service language, only exempting
“[t]he provision of natural gas transportation services by a pipeline.” SDCL 10-45-
67 (emphasis added). And this is not the only example of the Legislature’s decision
to use the more limited and particularly described service exemption when it
desired to restrict an establishment’s exemption to a particular service. See SDCL
10-45-12.1 (limiting an exemption to “credit counseling services provided by
individual and family social services”). Thus, when the Legislature has intended to
limit an establishment’s exemption to a particular service, whether in SDCL 10-45-
12.1 or in a separate statute, it has done so. But in the case of petroleum pipelines,
the Legislature chose not to limit the exemption to transportation services.
-13-
#26553
[¶29.] The dissent would deny an exemption in this case, but it does so only
by adding the words “transportation services” to the pipeline establishment
exemption statute. The dissent correctly notes that major group 46 “includes
establishments primarily engaged in the pipeline transportation of petroleum or
other commodities[.]” See SIC Manual at 279. But the dissent then incorrectly
relies on other SIC Manual language indicating that where “distinct and separate”
“economic activities” are provided at a single physical location, each activity should
be classified as a separate “establishment” (presumably with different, non-exempt
classification numbers). 5 See Dissent ¶¶ 42-43 (concluding that there is no evidence
5. The Department makes a closely related argument based on our decisions in
Mauch v. South Dakota Department of Revenue & Regulation, 2007 S.D. 90,
¶¶ 9-24, 738 N.W.2d 537, 540-44, Cooperative Agronomy Services v. South
Dakota Department of Revenue, 2003 S.D. 104, ¶¶ 14-15, 668 N.W.2d 718,
722-23, and similar decisions. The Department points out that in those
cases, we noted that taxability is based on the transaction and not the
classification or primary business of the taxpayer. But in the Department’s
cases, the issue involved the taxpayer’s entitlement to a particular
classification. The “SIC Manual [is used under the statutory scheme] in
order to determine the proper classification.” Graceland Coll. Ctr. for Prof’l
Dev. & Lifelong Learning, Inc. v. S.D. Dep’t of Revenue, 2002 S.D. 145, ¶ 7,
654 N.W.2d 779, 783. Therefore, in the Department’s cases, it was necessary
to focus on the transactions to determine whether the entity fit within the
claimed classification. Here, there is no dispute that Magellan is classified as
a pipeline in major group 46. Therefore, the “transaction” cases are not
helpful.
The Department’s reliance on “predominant activity” cases is also misplaced.
See, e.g., TRM ATM Corp. v. S.D. Dep’t of Revenue & Regulation, 2010 S.D.
90, ¶ 9, 793 N.W.2d 1, 4 (“[I]n analyzing the taxability of a service, the
dispositive inquiry focuses on the predominant activity in the transaction
between those parties who exchange consideration for the service.”). Here,
Magellan satisfies that test because there is no dispute that Magellan’s
primary activity involves the transportation of petroleum products.
Moreover, the predominant activity test is used in applying SDCL 10-45-4.1,
(continued . . .)
-14-
#26553
that a petroleum pipeline injects additives and calibrates its equipment as a part of
its service of transporting petroleum, and no industry classification has been cited
to include each of those activities).
[¶30.] There are two errors in the dissent’s analysis. First, to qualify for the
SIC major group 46 exemption, each service provided by a petroleum pipeline need
not be classified as an “establishment ‘primarily engaged in the pipeline
transportation of petroleum.’” The SIC Manual provides that “[e]ach operating
establishment is assigned an industry code on the basis of its primary activity,
which is determined by its principal . . . services rendered.” SIC Manual at 15
(emphasis added). Consequently, to qualify for exempt classification in major group
46, the establishment need only be “primarily” engaged in the pipeline
transportation of petroleum. See id. at 279. And by basing classification on an
establishment’s primary activity and principal service rather than each included
service, the SIC Manual recognizes that the primary activity controls even though
other services may be provided.
[¶31.] Nevertheless, the dissent contends that separate classifications are
required because the SIC Manual requires separate classification where “no one
industry description in the classification includes . . . combined activities[,]” and
“the employment in each . . . economic activity is significant.” See Dissent ¶¶ 41-42
(emphasis added) (citing SIC Manual at 12). The Department has not made this
________________________
(. . . continued)
a statute that has a different purpose; i.e., to define a “service.” Here, there
is no dispute that Magellan’s injection and calibration activities are services.
-15-
#26553
argument on appeal, and the dissent errs in relying on this language because
neither test is satisfied in this case.
[¶32.] The first test is not satisfied because major group 46 classification
describes the combined activities that Magellan provides. The dissent contends
that there is no evidence that additive injection and equipment calibration services
are part of Magellan’s primary service of transporting petroleum. But the
stipulated facts reflect that those services are a necessarily included part of the
services Magellan provides in transporting petroleum products. The stipulation
reflects that when petroleum products are transported in interstate pipelines, the
petroleum products are fungible, and Magellan must inject them with additives 6 at
the time its customers take delivery of the individual products at the terminal rack.
Those additive services are necessarily combined because some of the additives are
“end-product components” that are “mandated” to be injected under state and
federal law. Stipulated Facts ¶¶ 19-21. Other additives must be injected to
differentiate between proprietary brands or to enhance diesel performance. 7 Id.
[¶33.] The second test is not satisfied because there is no dispute that the
additive injection and related equipment calibration services are a relatively
6. Equipment calibration services are necessary to monitor the additive
injections.
7. The specific additives that must be injected at the rack include gasoline
detergent, diesel lubricity additive, diesel dye, jet fuel deicer, diesel cold flow
improver, diesel detergent, and proprietary additives. Proprietary additives
are required because pipelines provide the same fungible petroleum products
to competing retailers. The products must be injected with proprietary
additives at the pipeline terminal so the products may be differentiated when
sold at retail.
-16-
#26553
insignificant part of Magellan’s pipeline services. This is a 9,500 mile pipeline
crossing thirteen states in its transportation of petroleum from refineries
throughout the country to fifty-one terminals, including those in South Dakota. But
the additives are injected only at the very end of that journey when the petroleum
products are being loaded into the customer’s trucks as they leave the terminals.
Because the injection and calibration services are a relatively insignificant part of a
pipeline’s economic activity, and because major group 46 describes those combined
services, the “distinct and separate economic activity” test is not satisfied.
Therefore, the SIC Manual provides no basis to require separate industry codes for
the injection and calibration services Magellan necessarily includes in its
transportation of petroleum products.
[¶34.] Entitlement to a tax exemption must be based on the language of the
statute. Sioux Falls Shopping News, Inc. v. Dep’t of Revenue & Regulation, 2008
S.D. 34, ¶ 26, 749 N.W.2d 522, 527 (noting that a court may not include language in
the tax statutes that the Legislature did not employ). The Legislature limited the
natural gas pipeline exemption to “transportation services,” but the Legislature did
not use (or incorporate by reference) any language limiting the petroleum pipeline
exemption to “transportation” or any other particular service. Instead, the
Legislature broadly exempted petroleum “pipe line” establishments from sales
taxation. Because the Department agrees that Magellan is a petroleum pipeline
establishment that falls within major group 46, there is no statutory basis to limit
Magellan’s exemption to any of the pipeline services it provides. And because the
-17-
#26553
injection and calibration services are pipeline services provided by an establishment
classified in major group 46, the services are exempt under SDCL 10-45-12.1.
[¶35.] KERN, Circuit Court Judge, joins this special writing.
KONENKAMP, Justice (dissenting).
[¶36.] The Court analyzes the issue here backwards. It begins with the
exemption statute, SDCL 10-45-12.1, without first looking to what taxable services
Magellan provides. To be exempt, the activity must first be taxable. As SDCL 10-
45-4 provides, the gross receipts of a service rendered by a business are taxable
“unless the service is specifically exempt from the provisions of this chapter.”
(Emphasis added.) A “service” is defined as “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.
[¶37.] Magellan Pipeline Company provides multiple services for its
customers, including storing, transporting, and injecting additives into refined
petroleum products, and calibrating equipment. Because these services are
rendered to customers for a fee, those services are taxable unless specifically
exempted.
[¶38.] After identifying the taxable services, the next step is to determine
whether any of those services are specifically exempted. Taxpayers have the
burden of proving entitlement to an exemption. In re State Sales & Use Tax Liab. of
Pam Oil, Inc., 459 N.W.2d 251, 255 (S.D. 1990). Exempting statutes are construed
-18-
#26553
strictly in favor of the taxing power. Watertown Coop., 2001 S.D. 56, ¶ 10, 627
N.W.2d at 171 (citing In re State & City Sales Tax Liab. of Quality Serv. Railcar
Repair Corp., 437 N.W.2d 209, 211 (S.D. 1989)).
[¶39.] Under SDCL 10-45-12.1, “[t]he following services enumerated in the
Standard Industrial Classification Manual, 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: . . . pipe lines, except natural gas (major
group 46)[.]” (Emphasis added.) Contrary to the special writing’s view, the
language of SDCL 10-45-12.1 does not show that the Legislature acted specifically
to create or describe “two types of exemptions.” Rather, a closer comparison of the
statute and the SIC Manual reveals that the Legislature simply took the language
used by the SIC Manual and chose which services it intended to allow service
exemptions. In particular, the language “pipe lines, except natural gas” is directly
from the SIC Manual. The SIC Manual, not the South Dakota Legislature,
excluded natural gas from major group 46. Thus, it is illogical to declare that the
Legislature’s different treatment of petroleum pipelines and natural gas is a
significant indication of the Legislature’s intent to treat petroleum pipelines “more
broadly.”
[¶40.] Moreover, because the Legislature specifically referred to the SIC
Manual and because what constitutes “pipe lines,” as contemplated by SDCL 10-45-
12.1 is not clear from the text of the statute, we must examine the language of that
manual. In regard to “pipe lines, except natural gas,” SIC Group 46 is the starting
point. That group “includes establishments primarily engaged in the pipeline
-19-
#26553
transportation of petroleum or other commodities, except natural gas.” Then,
within group 46, there are three Industry Groups. Relevant here is the industry
entitled, Refined Petroleum Pipelines. That industry is defined as
“[e]stablishments primarily engaged in the pipeline transportation of refined
products of petroleum, such as gasoline and fuel oil.” Magellan is an establishment
primarily engaged in the pipeline transportation of refined petroleum products.
[¶41.] The analysis, however, should not stop there. Because Magellan’s
services of storing refined petroleum, calibrating equipment, and injecting additives
are not necessarily services offered by an establishment primarily engaged in the
pipeline transportation of refined petroleum, Magellan must prove entitlement to
an exemption for those services. On this point, the SIC Manual is controlling.
[¶42.] The SIC Manual defines an “establishment” as “an economic unit,
generally at a single physical location, where business is conducted or where
services or industrial operations are performed.” “Where distinct and separate
economic activities are performed at a single physical location . . . such activity
should be treated as a separate establishment where: (1) no one industry
description in the classification includes such combined activities; (2) the
employment in each such economic activity is significant; and (3) separate reports
can be prepared on the number of employees, their wages and salaries, sales or
receipts, and other types of establishment data.” (Emphasis added.)
[¶43.] Here, Magellan, a pipeline establishment, performs distinct and
separate economic activities with refined petroleum products: storing, transporting,
injecting additives either by customer request or by legal mandate, and calibrating
-20-
#26553
equipment. There is no evidence that a pipeline establishment stores refined
petroleum, calibrates equipment, and injects additives as part of its service of
transporting refined petroleum. Moreover, there is no industry classification cited
to include all such activities. Thus, Magellan has failed to meet its burden of
proving an exemption. And Magellan keeps separate sales reports on its injecting of
additives and equipment calibration. Because we must remain cognizant of the fact
that “[e]xemptions are a matter of legislative grace and doubts are resolved in favor
of taxation[,]” Magellan’s separate and distinct services of injecting additives and
calibrating equipment should be deemed separate and distinct economic activities
with refined petroleum products. See In re State Sales & Use Tax Liab. of Townley,
417 N.W.2d 398, 400 (S.D. 1987).
-21-