The Missouri Administrative Hearing Commission determined that an agreement between two parties did not constitute a lease and, therefore, the company which purchased the aircraft was responsible for sales tax. After its purchase of the aircraft, the taxpayer had claimed that its agreement with the seller represented a leaseback arrangement in which the seller could use the airplane for charter flight activities. The agreement, however, explicitly stated that the seller would not acquire “ownership, title, property rights, or interests in or to the Aircraft and its engines, accessories and equipment.” This language precluded the agreement from meeting the criteria for a lease and was, instead, determined to be a management agreement. Therefore, the taxpayer was responsible for sales tax on the aircraft’s purchase. (Progress Instrument, Inc. v. Director of Revenue, Missouri Administrative Hearing Commission, No. 05-0861 RS, June 21, 2006)