07/10/89 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Se~ic~ 1499, JUly 10, 1989 Page2 ~n response to Mr. Price's ~wcic~ about star~wds, Mr. Ollendorff said the p~u~erty not only has to be m~ntained in accordance with the City's Housing O0de but also with the Parkview Gardens rehabilitation starry-ds. He said the owner inv~ about $15,000 per unit, and agreed to a limit of four occupants Mr. ~ moved approval of the request for five a~tional years of tax abatement at 50%, with Mr. Wagner seconding the motion. All voe~ Aye except Mr. Price, who voted Nay. The ~ion carried by a vote of six to one. ~he City Manager said Council has r~ceived a request to revise the City's bus- ir~ license fee structure to aoc~,m~date a business which may buy the build- lng of the people making the request. ~b_~s business buys and sells petrole~ products and prefers to pay on the basis of number of ~,~loyees rather than on the basis of 9~u~s receipts. Mr. Ollendorff did not reo~tm~nd the change. D=. Curt Wolf came forward and said he and Mr. J. S. McMillan were partners trying to sell a buildin~ at 7477 Delmar. He said the potential buyers of the build/rig considered themselves chemical brokers, and as such, felt they should be taxed on the number of =,%~loyees and not on the basis of 9zuss re- oeipts. He noted that the University City Municipal Code does not define brokers, and said there wo~ld be a huge difference in the amount of taxes paid between the two categories. Ms. Reinette Saleeby, attorney z~resentir~ Dr. Wolf and Mr. McMillan, said the ~-c~l~ w~s in the interp~=tation of broker because if the buying c~,~any fell w~thin the definition of me~/~ar~{-~e broker, it would pay a different type of tax than a gross receipts tax. She pointed out that the Internal Rev- enue Service considers this o~,~any a broker, since they bring buyers and sellers together and ther~ is no storage of inventory. Since the c~,~any is not a o~,~on carrier, it must briefly take title while transporting goods fr~m seller to buyer, she said, but this is only a technicality. She added that the c~,~ny in question will use no city services, and it dues not operate its trucks in Missouri at all. .She said the co~f~ny makes no profit on the trans- ports4 goods except for its c~,~,.~ssion. If they are taxed on the 9£u~s r~- ceipts of the transported goods, the c~L~ny will not be able to do business in University City, s~m said. ~~ to Mz~. ~n~,~sc~, Ms. Saleeby said the c~any would have about six ~loy~. Mr. Ollendorff said he knew of no other c~,~anies in University City that were taxed on n%m~er of e~ployee~, and that all merchants were taxed on the basis of ~s ~rece~ipts, although .he realized this o~,~any was claiming it was a broker and not a merchant. Mr. Ollendorff pointed out that the ~ party r~ains a private carrier in order to avoid paying taxes es a o~on car- rier; now it wants University City to cc~ider it a broker even though it does have title, even if briefly, to the goods being sold. In response to Mr. ~4~s, Ms. Sale,by said the service rendered by this ccm- party w~s similar to that of goods taken on consigz,t~nt. Dr. Wolf said the ~any must take title of the goods in order to transport th~m, but the real