200809237H



SOAH DOCKET NO. 304-07-2936.26
CPA HEARING NO.  48,059

RE: **************
TAXPAYER NO.: **************
AUDIT OFFICE: **************
AUDIT PERIOD: June 1, 2001 THROUGH June 30, 2001

Limited Sales, Excise, And Use Tax/RDT

BEFORE THE COMPTROLLER 
OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS 
OF THE STATE OF TEXAS

SUSAN COMBS
Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts

J.D. BOSTICK
Representing Tax Division

**************
Representing Petitioner


COMPTROLLER’S DECISION

************** (Petitioner) seeks redetermination of the assessment made by the 
Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts (Comptroller) in connection to 
Petitioner’s purchase of an airplane.  The case was referred to the State 
Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH).  The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) 
gave notice of the intent to dispose of the case by summary disposition and the 
parties expressed no objections.  In this Proposal for Decision, the ALJ 
recommends that the assessment be upheld. 

I.  PROCEDURAL HISTORY, NOTICE & JURISDICTION

Pursuant to a Texas Notification of Exam Results dated December 15, 2005, the 
Comptroller assessed Petitioner tax, penalty, and interest.  Petitioner timely 
requested redetermination.  

On September 10, 2007, by Order No. 5, ALJ Roy Scudday gave notice of his 
intent to dispose of the case by summary disposition under 1 Texas 
Administrative Code (TAC) 155.57(a).  The parties were given deadlines to file 
any objections and to provide a separate statement of all materials facts in 
dispute.  The record was set to close on October 29, 2007.  

The case was thereafter transferred to ALJ Eleanor Kim.  Petitioner is 
represented by **************.  The Comptroller was represented by Assistant 
General Counsel Victor Simonds, but is now represented by Assistant General 
Counsel Robin Robinson.  

On October 1, 2007, Petitioner filed a motion for summary disposition stating 
that he was entitled to a favorable decision as a matter of law, which the ALJ 
treated as Petitioner’s agreement that summary disposition was appropriate.  
Staff did not object to the ALJ’s intent to dispose of the case by summary 
disposition.  The record closed October 29, 2007, as scheduled.

II.  DISCUSSION

A. Summary Disposition Standard

If there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and a party is entitled to 
a decision in its favor as a matter of law, a case may be disposed of, in whole 
or in part, by summary disposition pursuant to the rule at 1 TAC 155.57.  The 
type of proof that can be used to support a summary disposition includes 
affidavits, pleadings, materials obtained by discovery, admissions, matters 
officially noticed, stipulations, or evidence of record.  

B. Facts 

The following facts were established by the uncontroverted summary disposition 
evidence: 

On June 8, 2001, Petitioner purchased an aircraft styled Beech Bonanza A-36 
(Serial Number **************) from COMPANY A.  The aircraft bill of sale was 
recorded with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on July 21, 2001, under 
the registration number of **************.  Petitioner’s address on the bill of 
sale was **************, CITY A, Oklahoma.

COMPANY A delivered the aircraft to Petitioner in CITY B on June 8, 2001.  
Petitioner used the aircraft three times on June 8, 2001 to travel within 
Oklahoma: (1) from CITY B to CITY C and then back to CITY B; (2) from CITY B to 
CITY A; and (3) from CITY A to CITY B and then back to CITY A.  On June 8, 
2001, Petitioner fueled the aircraft in CITY A and CITY B, and kept the 
aircraft overnight at a hanger located in CITY A.  

The aircraft was later flown into Texas.  Petitioner has an office at 
************** Airport, CITY D, Texas.  Based on information obtained from the 
FAA, the Comptroller assessed use tax against Petitioner and mailed the Texas 
Notice of Exam Result to Petitioner at **************, CITY D, Texas.  On 
January 12, 2006, Petitioner responded to the notice disagreeing with the 
assessment, and the letter reflected Petitioner’s address as **************, 
CITY D, Texas.

C. Authorities, Arguments, and Analysis

When a person, who resides or is doing business in Texas, purchases tangible 
personal property from outside the state and brings the item into Texas, the 
purchaser is presumed to have purchased the item for storage, use, or 
consumption in this state, and the purchaser is liable for use tax. [ENDNOTE: 
(1)]  Petitioner purchased a Beech Bonanza A-36 (the aircraft) outside of Texas 
and used it for one day in Oklahoma before bringing the aircraft into Texas, 
where Petitioner resides and has a place of business.  Accordingly, 
Petitioner’s purchase of the aircraft is subject to Texas use tax unless an 
exemption applies.  Petitioner claims an exemption.  At issue here is whether 
Petitioner’s purchase of the aircraft is exempt from Texas use tax under Tax 
Code 151.328(a)(4), which provides that an aircraft is exempt from tax “if [the 
aircraft] is sold to a person for use and registration in another state or 
nation before any use in this state other than flight training in the aircraft 
and the transportation of the aircraft out of this state.” 

Petitioner contends that his facts fall squarely within Tax Code 151.328(a)(4) 
because he used and registered the aircraft in Oklahoma before the aircraft was 
used in Texas.  Staff contends that the claimed exemption has no applicability 
to Petitioner’s use tax case because Tax Code 151.328(a)(4) applies only to a 
sales tax transaction.  Staff argues that the Legislature’s intent to limit the 
exemption applicability to a sale completed in Texas is evident by the language 
“before any use in this state other than flight training in the aircraft and 
the transportation of the aircraft out of this state.”  According to Staff, a 
sale that occurs outside of Texas would not require transportation out of 
Texas.

In addition, Staff argues Petitioner’s position cannot be sustained under basic 
principles of statutory interpretation.  First, Staff argues that Petitioner’s 
reading of the statute renders meaningless the phrase “other than flight 
training in the aircraft and transportation of the aircraft out of this state.” 
 Second, an exemption must be strictly construed, which Staff contends is a 
principle that Petitioner violates by reading the statute so broadly that it 
encourages Texas residents to purchase airplanes from out-of-state sellers 
rather than from Texas sellers.  According to Staff, it is unreasonable to 
construe the statute in a manner to find that the Texas Legislature 
deliberately created an exemption that gives out-of-state sellers a competitive 
advantage over Texas sellers.  Staff argues that the converse is actually true 
and cites STAR Accession No. 9707580L (July 22, 1997) as the Comptroller’s 
recognition that the statute “was designed to level the playing field for Texas 
aircraft vendors with those in other states.”  Third, Staff points out that to 
qualify for the exemption provided by Tax Code 151.328(a)(4), a taxpayer must 
satisfy the requirements of Tax Code 151.328(f), which requires a person who 
purchases an aircraft “in this state” to sign an exemption certificate.  Staff 
argues that the operation of the two statutes demonstrates the Legislature’s 
clear intent to apply the exemption only to sales completed in Texas.  Finally, 
Staff refers to a recent amendment to Tax Code 151.328(a)(4), effective 
September 1, 2007, as evidence that the Legislature clarified its intent that 
the exemption is available only to in-state sales by exempting an aircraft sold 
“... in this state to a person for use and registration in another state or 
nation before any use in this state....” (Emphasis added).  Staff asserts the 
2007 adoption has significance and urges it be given weight.

Petitioner contends that Tax Code 151.328 exempts the sale of an aircraft from 
taxes imposed by Chapter 151 of the Tax Code, which includes both sales and use 
taxes.  Petitioner argues that the Comptroller has already construed the 
exemption as being applicable to both tax types, as reflected in 34 TAC 
3.297(c)(9), which reads “Texas sales or use tax is not due on aircraft sold to 
a person for use and registration in another state....”  Petitioner emphasizes 
the “use tax” reference in the rule.  Moreover, Petitioner contends that the 
Comptroller applied the exemption to a use tax transaction in Comptroller’s 
Decision No. 39,806 (2001).  In the hearing, the Comptroller addressed the 
taxability of an aircraft that was purchased in Kansas, but registered in 
Connecticut before the aircraft was brought into Texas.  In rejecting the 
taxpayer’s exemption claim, the Comptroller ruled that Tax Code 151.328(a)(4) 
applies only if the aircraft was used and registered in the same state before 
any Texas use.  This interpretation, according to Petitioner, controls the 
issue here.  Unlike the taxpayer in Comptroller’s Decision No. 39,806, 
Petitioner argues that he qualifies for the exemption because he both used and 
registered the aircraft in Oklahoma before bringing the aircraft into Texas.  
Petitioner dismisses Staff’s statutory construction arguments by contending 
that under the plain reading of Tax Code 151.328(a)(4), the statute has two 
parts, one that exempts an aircraft purchased for use and registration in 
another state before any use in Texas, and another that exempts an aircraft 
that is purchased in Texas for flight training in Texas and then transported 
out of Texas.  According to Petitioner, only the first part of the exemption 
statute is applicable to his case.  With respect to the exemption certificate 
requirement of Tax Code 151.328(f), Petitioner’s position is that even though 
the exemption applies to both sales and use taxes, only a person who purchases 
an aircraft in Texas is required to issue the exemption ce
rtificate.  

The parties’ dispute centers on whether Tax Code 151.328(a)(4) applies to sales 
tax transactions only or whether it applies to both sales and use tax 
transactions.  Sales and use taxes are transactional taxes that involve a 
seller and a purchaser. [ENDNOTE: (2)] Sales tax is due on each sale of a 
taxable item in this state. [ENDNOTE: (3)]  A sales tax transaction involves a 
situation where both the seller and the purchaser are located in Texas.  In 
contrast, a use tax transaction involves an out-of-state seller, but the 
purchaser resides or is doing business in Texas.  Use tax is a tax on the 
enjoyment of the item purchased. [ENDNOTE: (4)]  As a result, use tax is due on 
each taxable item brought into Texas for use, storage, and consumption. 
[ENDNOTE: (5)]  Use tax complements sales tax and serves to prevent the 
avoidance of sales tax by requiring tax on items purchased outside of the 
state. [ENDNOTE: (6)]  Use tax places in-state retailers upon equal footing 
with out-of-state sellers because a purchaser has no tax incentive to purchase 
a taxable item from an out-of-state seller if the purchaser must pay use tax in 
the same amount as sales tax. [ENDNOTE: (7)]  The construction of Tax Code 
151.328(a)(4) must be considered within this statutory context. 

Sales and use taxes generally share the same tax exemptions. [ENDNOTE: (8)]  
This is the origin of Petitioner’s argument that Tax Code 151.328(a)(4) applies 
to both sales tax and use tax transactions.  Staff argues that Tax Code 
151.328(a)(4) is one of the few exemptions that applies only to sales tax 
transactions.  The initial difficulty faced by Staff is its inability to point 
to a policy statement to support its position, whereas Petitioner relies on 34 
TAC 3.297(c)(9) and Comptroller’s Decision No. 39,806.  Staff relies on the 
principles of statutory construction to argue what the Legislature intended in 
enacting Tax Code 151.328(a)(4) and to argue that 34 TAC 3.297(c)(9) should not 
be read to contravene the statute.  Staff does not affirmatively address 
Comptroller’s Decision No. 39,806, but based on its arguments related to 34 TAC 
3.297(c)(9), the only inference that can be made is that Staff believes that 
particular portion of the hearing decision should be ignored as an incorrect 
interpretation of the statute.  

Staff presents various statutory construction arguments, including the 
contention that the Legislature’s 2007 amendment to the statute was a 
clarification.  Staff emphasizes that the adoption of the Comptroller’s 
interpretation by the Legislature in 2007 demonstrates Petitioner’s 
interpretation of Tax Code 151.328(a)(4) is incorrect, but this argument is the 
least persuasive argument proffered by Staff.  Even when the Legislature 
expressly states that a statutory tax change is a clarification of existing 
law, the court of appeals has ignored the express statement of intent when the 
statute as written is subject to a different interpretation. [ENDNOTE: (9)] At 
best, the court of appeals has given weight to the express statement of 
clarification only after first ascertaining the statute’s meaning as written 
and finding a consistency between the statute’s meaning and the express intent. 
[ENDNOTE: (10)] The 2007 amendment relied on by Staff has a prospective 
effective date without any express statement that the change was a 
clarification.  A statute is presumed to be prospective in its operation unless 
expressly made retrospective. [ENDNOTE: (11)]  Accordingly, the 2007 
legislation does not in any way bolster Staff’s position.

The 2007 amendment is not pertinent to the case at hand because it is the 
statute as it existed at the time of the transaction which must be construed.  
Ascertaining the Legislature’s intent should be from the language it used in 
the statute. [ENDNOTE: (12)]  Petitioner’s reading of Tax Code 151.328(a)(4) as 
providing two separate exemptions is at odds with the Legislature’s use of the 
phrase “other than” because it demonstrates that flight training is an 
exception to the requirement of “before any use in Texas.”  An exception makes 
plain the intent that the two parts are related rather than discrete as argued 
by Petitioner.  The rejection of Petitioner’s statutory construction argument, 
however, does not establish that Tax Code 151.328(a)(4) applies only to sales 
tax transactions.  In construing a statute, even an unambiguous one, the object 
sought to be obtained, the legislative history, and the consequences of a 
particular construction may be considered. [ENDNOTE: (13)]  These factors will 
be considered here to glean legislative intent.

The Legislature amended Tax Code 151.328(a)(4) to the version at issue in 1993, 
by rewriting Tax Code 151.328(a)(3) (the predecessor statute) which provided an 
exemption from tax for the sale of an aircraft “sold to a foreign government or 
to persons who are not residents of this state.”  A tax exemption statute 
operates to exempt a transaction that is otherwise taxable.  This legal 
principle prompts the question as to what transactions involving a non-Texas 
resident are subject to tax in Texas.  A transaction between a non-Texas 
resident and an out-of-state seller is not subject to Texas use tax because the 
purchase is not for use, storage, or other consumption in Texas.  Accordingly, 
the predecessor exemption statute had no legal applicability to a use tax 
transaction.  To read the exemption statute as applying to a use tax 
transaction would mean the Legislature exempted a transaction that was never 
subject to Texas’ taxing authority in the first place.  It is well established 
that the Legislature does not do a useless thing. [ENDNOTE: (14)]  A 
transaction involving a non-Texas resident and in-state seller may be subject 
to Texas sales tax.  However, a taxable item that is shipped by an in-state 
seller to a location outside the state is exempt from tax, [ENDNOTE: (15)] so 
as in the use tax scenario, the predecessor statute has no relevancy to this 
sales tax scenario.  The remaining transaction is the transaction where the 
non-Texas resident purchases a taxable item from an in-state seller and takes 
physical possession of the item in Texas.  A taxable sale occurs when title or 
possession of tangible personal property is transferred for consideration in 
Texas. [ENDNOTE: (16)]  This taxable sale is what the Legislature intended to 
exempt under the pre-1993 exemption statute.  By exempting in-state sales 
between a Texas seller and a non-Texas resident, the Legislature eliminated the 
tax burden on a non-Texas resident who purchased an airplane from a Texas 
seller.  Rather than enforcing use tax against out-of-state
 sellers to even the playing field for Texas sellers, which is the purpose of 
the use tax, the Legislature instead granted an exemption to encourage 
non-Texas residents to come into Texas to buy airplanes from Texas sellers.  It 
is consistent with the Comptroller’s statement in STAR Accession No. 9707580L 
that the exemption was designed to level the playing field for Texas aircraft 
vendors.  The 1997 taxability letter refers to the 1993 version of the statute, 
indicating that the Comptroller views the 1993 statute and the pre-1993 statute 
as serving the same purpose. 

The pre-1993 exemption statute placed no limit on the use of the aircraft in 
Texas.  Under the literal reading of the statute as it existed then, a 
non-Texas resident was able to purchase an aircraft in Texas and use it in 
Texas for awhile without losing the tax exemption.  Effective October 1, 1993, 
the Legislature amended the statute to the version at issue.  Based on the 
plain wording of the statute, it is evident that the Legislature intended to 
narrow the exemption to exclude a non-resident who uses the aircraft in Texas 
from qualifying for the exemption unless the use involves only flight training 
before transporting it outside the state. [ENDNOTE: (17)]  The 1993 amendment 
left intact the applicability of the exemption to sales tax transactions as 
evidenced by the Legislature’s contemporaneous enactment of Tax Code 151.328(f) 
with Tax Code 151.328(a)(4).  To qualify for the exemption provided under Tax 
Code 151.328(a)(4), Tax Code 151.328(f) requires that “the person purchasing 
the aircraft in this state must sign at the time of purchase an exemption 
certificate” that contains the following content: 

(1) is designated as an exemption certificate for the purchase of an aircraft 
for out-of-state registration and use; 

(2) is on a form designated by the comptroller; 

(3) contains all information the comptroller considers reasonable;

(4) is signed by the purchaser at the time of the purchase; and

(5) provides that purchaser, by signing the certificate, authorizes the 
comptroller to provide a copy of the certificate to the state or nation of 
intended use and registration. 

Generally, statutes concerning the same subject matter are harmonized, if 
possible, to give effect to all. [ENDNOTE: (18)]  With respect to Tax Code 
151.328(a)(4) and 151.328(f), the Legislature has mandated it by expressly 
tying the two statutes for the operation of the exemption.  In Tax Code 
151.328(f), the Legislature stated that the certificate must be signed by the 
purchaser who buys an aircraft “in this state” indicating clearly that 
Legislature intended to exempt sales completed in Texas.  The statutory content 
requirements of the exemption certificate further demonstrate that the 
Legislature contemplated that the purchased aircraft would be taken out of 
Texas, reinforcing the view of an in-state sales.  Petitioner argues that the 
Legislature intended to apply the requirement of  Tax Code 151.328(f) to 
in-state sales, but he offered no rationale as to why the Legislature would 
require an exemption certificate be issued to in-state sellers and not to 
out-of-state sellers who hold Texas sales and use tax permits and who are 
legally required to collect Texas use tax. [ENDNOTE: (19)]  There is no 
rationale other than the fact the exemption is intended only for sales tax 
transactions, as demonstrated by its history and the statutory context of the 
exemption.

Petitioner relies on 34 TAC 3.297(c)(9) and Comptroller’s Decision No. 39,806, 
as evidence of existing Comptroller’s interpretation.  The rule found at 34 TAC 
3.297(c)(9) provides that no sales or use tax is due, and the statement is not 
inaccurate.  No use tax is due on a person who purchases an aircraft outside of 
Texas and brings it into Texas for flight training and then leaves Texas after 
the training.  The general statement that no use tax is due cannot be read to 
extend the exemption of Tax Code 151.328(a)(4) beyond what was intended by the 
Legislature, nor can it be used to ignore the  requirements of Tax Code 
151.328(f).  In Comptroller’s Decision No. 39,806, the Comptroller suggested a 
use tax transaction can be exempt under Tax Code 151.328(a)(4) if the use and 
registration occurred in the same state before any use in Texas.  The 
interpretation articulated in Comptroller’s Decision No. 39,806 is not 
consistent with the statute, which applies only to sales tax transactions for 
the reasons noted above.  The ALJ concludes that Comptroller’s Decision No. 
39,806, though correct in its ultimate rejection of the exemption claim, 
erroneously interpreted Tax Code 151.328(a)(4).  Taxpayers do not have vested 
rights to the continuation of an erroneous policy. [ENDNOTE: (20)]  Staff’s 
position taken in this case is consistent with statute and facilitates 
legislative intent.

Petitioner purchased a taxable item for use, storage, or other consumption in 
Texas.  There is no applicable exemption to exempt the purchase from tax.  
Therefore, the ALJ concludes that under 1 TAC 155.57, Staff is entitled to a 
decision in its favor as a matter of law.  The ALJ recommends that the 
assessment be upheld without changes.  

III.  FINDINGS OF FACT

1. ************** (Petitioner) purchased an airplane from COMPANY A 
(**************).

2. The Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts (Comptroller) assessed Petitioner 
for tax, penalty, and interest in connection to Petitioner’s purchase of the 
airplane.

3. Petitioner requested redetermination, and the case was referred to the State 
Office of Administrative Hearings.

4. On May 23, 2007, Staff provided a notice of hearing to Petitioner.

5. The notice of hearing contained the date, the time, and a statement of the 
nature of the hearing; a statement of the legal authority and jurisdiction 
under which the hearing was to be held; a reference to the particular sections 
of the statutes and rules involved; and a short, plain statement of the matters 
asserted.

6. On September 10, 2007, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Roy Scudday issued an 
order stating his intent to dispose of the case by summary disposition and gave 
the parties the opportunity to file objections and a statement of disputed 
facts.  The record was scheduled to close on October 29, 2007.

7. The file was transferred to ALJ Eleanor Kim.

8. The parties did not object to disposing of the case by summary disposition.

9. The record closed on October 29, 2007, as scheduled.

10. COMPANY A is located outside of Texas.

11. On June 8, 2001, Petitioner accepted the delivery of the airplane from 
COMPANY A in Oklahoma and used the airplane for three short trips within 
Oklahoma on the same day before hangaring it in Oklahoma.

12. Petitioner registered the airplane in Oklahoma.

13. Petitioner brought the airplane into Texas.

14. Petitioner resides in Texas and has a place of business in Texas.

15. Petitioner purchased the airplane for use, storage, or other consumption in 
Texas.

IV.  CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The Comptroller has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to TEX. TAX CODE 
ANN. ch. 111.

2. The State Office of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over matters 
related to the hearing in this matter, including the authority to issue a 
proposal for decision with findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to 
TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. ch. 2003.

3. The Comptroller provided proper and timely notice of the hearing pursuant to 
TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. ch. 2001 and TEX. TAX CODE ANN. 111.009.

4. An administrative law judge may issue a proposal for decision or other order 
resolving a contested case without an evidentiary hearing if a party files a 
motion for summary disposition or if the administrative law judge issues a 
notice of intent to dispose of the case  by summary disposition.  1 TEX. ADMIN. 
CODE 155.57.

5. Use tax is imposed on the storage, use, or other consumption in this state 
of tangible personal property purchased from a retailer for storage, use, or 
other consumption in this state.  TEX. TAX CODE ANN. 151.101(a).

6. Tangible personal property that is shipped or brought into Texas by a 
purchaser is presumed to have been purchased from a retailer for storage, use, 
or consumption in Texas.  TEX. TAX CODE ANN. 151.105. 

7. The purchaser storing, using, or consuming tangible personal property in 
this state is liable for use tax under TEX. TAX CODE ANN. 151.102(a). 

8. Based on Findings of Fact Nos 1, 10, and 13 - 15 and Conclusions of Law Nos. 
5 - 7, Petitioner is liable for use tax on the airplane brought into Texas for 
use, storage, or consumption unless an exemption applies.  

9. Petitioner has the burden to establish by clear and convincing evidence that 
he is eligible for the claimed exemption.  34 TEX. ADMIN. CODE 1.40(2)(A).

10. The exemption claimed by Petitioner under TEX. TAX CODE ANN. 151.328(a)(4) 
applies only to sales tax transactions.  Petitioner’s transaction was a use tax 
transaction, so he cannot by law establish an entitlement to the claimed 
exemption.

11. Based upon the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the 
assessment should be upheld.


Hearing No. 48,059

ORDER OF THE COMPTROLLER

On November 9, 2007 the State Office of Administrative Hearings’ Administrative 
Law Judge, Eleanor H. Kim, issued a Proposal for Decision in the above 
referenced matter to which Taxpayer filed Exceptions on November 26, 2007.  The 
Tax Division filed a Reply to Exceptions on December 3, 2007.  The Comptroller 
has considered the Exceptions, Reply and the ALJ’s recommendation letter and 
determined that the ALJ’s decision should be adopted without change and this 
decision represents the ruling thereon.

The above decision resulting in Taxpayer's liability as set out in “Attachment 
A,” which is incorporated by reference, is approved and adopted in all 
respects.  The decision becomes final twenty days after the date Petitioner 
receives notice of this decision, and the total sum of the tax, penalty, and 
interest amounts is due and payable within twenty days thereafter.  If such sum 
is not paid within such time, an additional penalty of ten percent of the taxes 
due will accrue, and interest will continue to accrue.  If either party desires 
a rehearing, that party must file a Motion for Rehearing, which must state the 
grounds for rehearing, no later than twenty days after the date Petitioner 
receives notice of this decision.  Notice of this decision is presumed to occur 
on the third day after the date of this decision.

Signed on this 24th day of September 2008.


SUSAN COMBS
Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts

by: Martin A. Hubert
Deputy Comptroller


ENDNOTE(S): 

(1) TEX. TAX CODE ANN. 151.101, 151.102 and 151.105.

(2) Calvert v. Canteen, 371 S.W.2d 556 (Tex. 1963).

(3) TEX. TAX CODE ANN. 151.051.

(4) Bullock v. Lone Star Gas Co., 567 S.W.2d 493 (Tex. 1978).

(5) TEX. TAX CODE ANN. 151.101.

(6) Bullock v. Foley Bros. Drys Goods Corp., 802 S.W.2d 835 (Tex. App. - Austin 
1990, writ denied).

(7) Id.

(8) TEX. TAX CODE ANN. 151.301.

(9) Rylander v. Fisher Control, 45 S.W.3d 291 (Tex. App. - Austin, 2001, no 
pet.). 

(10) Sergeant Enterprises, Inc. v. Strayhorn, 112 S.W.3d 241 (Tex. App. - 
Austin, 2003, no pet.).

(11) TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. 311.022.

(12) Nat’l Liab. & Fire Ins. Co. v. Allen, 15 S.W.3d 525 (Tex. 2000).

(13) USAA v. Strayhorn, 124 S.W.3d 722 (Tex. App. - Austin 2003, pet denied).

(14) TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. 311.021(3).

(15) TEX. TAX CODE ANN. 151.330(a).

(16) TEX. TAX CODE ANN. 151.005(1) and 151.051. 

(17) Apparently, the term “non-resident” was replaced with “a person for use 
and registration in another state” to address the Comptroller’s prior concerns 
in determining residency status of a legal entity that purchased an aircraft. 
Comptroller’s Decision No. 16,318 (1987) and STAR Accession No. 8403L0559C03 
(March 14, 1984). 

(18) TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. 311.026(a).

(19) TEX. TAX CODE ANN. 151.103, 151.106, and 151.107.

(20) Grocers Supply Co. v. Sharp, 978 S.W.2d 638 (Tex. App. - Austin 1998, pet 
denied).




ACCESSION NUMBER: 200809237H
SUPERSEDED: N
DOCUMENT TYPE: H
DATE: 09/24/2008
TAX TYPE: SALES