`INTERPRETATION' LEADS TO A HEAVIER TAX BURDEN

New taxes, while unsavory in a great many contexts, are at least thought to be borne of decisions made with deliberation, usually in a legislative setting. The public has sufficient time to consider the arguments for the revenue needs and the affected taxpayers and tax collectors have ample time to prepare. That scenario does not always hold true and the implementation Friday of a new sales tax on health club memberships is an example of this new attitude in revenue raising.

This is not a tax debated on the floor of the statehouse, its deliberation dissected by the media, but one engendered by an administrative ruling, a revenue department interpretation of the state sales tax law. While the revenue department certainly has authority to make these interpretations, and while the issue of creating fairness in all sales tax collections can be endlessly argued, the bottom line in this case is that there is another tax to pay.

The tax applies not only to such things as fitness center memberships and country club dues, but also equipment rental, locker use and lessons at these facilities. Under the new sales tax determination, these facilities fall into the categories of amusement and recreation taxes. This interpretation, spurred by a court decision, has a familiar ring to it.

Last year, newspapers were required to charge sales tax for the first time, the result of a court decision followed by an administrative ruling. At that time, newspapers, like fitness centers now, were objecting to the tax and scrambling to put together a collection system. The newspapers assembled collection systems that have become part of the mechanisms of those businesses. Taxpayers, however, must continue to pay, which is the point here.

The amount of tax charged in these cases is not sufficient to dissuade a loyal newspaper reader from subscribing or a fitness center devotee from renewing a membership. But even if the extra amount doesn't prove prohibitive to the individuals or damaging to those businesses, the fact remains that Jefferson City is getting a little more of the money of some Missourians. With little notice or possibility for public input, the taxpayer has a heavier load.

That this comes at a time when state revenue collections are decreasing (down $5 million in January compared to the previous year) might only lead us to the cynical view that as Missouri fiscal needs arise, further sales tax "interpretations" might be required.

We favor a careful view of all new taxes. We take a dim view of those new taxes that hit citizens out of the blue and dislike further the idea of using interpretations to enhance the state coffers.