John Keener d/b/a Mountaineer Inspection Services, LLC v. Matthew Irby, State Tax Commissioner of West Virginia ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •       IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA
    September 2021 Term                    FILED
    November 8, 2021
    released at 3:00 p.m.
    EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK
    SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
    No. 20-0488                         OF WEST VIRGINIA
    JOHN KEENER D/B/A
    MOUNTAINEER INSPECTION SERVICES, LLC,
    Petitioner
    V.
    MATTHEW IRBY,
    STATE TAX COMMISSIONER OF WEST VIRGINIA,
    Respondent
    _________________________________________________________
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of Taylor County
    The Honorable Shawn D. Nines, Judge
    Civil Action No. 18-P-57
    AFFIRMED, IN PART; REVERSED, IN PART
    _________________________________________________________
    Submitted: September 15, 2021
    Filed: November 8, 2021
    Ronald G. Kramer                          Patrick Morrisey
    Kramer Legal Group, PLLC                  Attorney General
    Bridgeport, West Virginia                 William C. Ballard
    Allison S. McClure                        Assistant Attorney General
    McClure Law PLLC                          Andrew L. Ellis
    Clarksburg, West Virginia                 Assistant Attorney General
    Attorneys for Petitioner                  Charleston, West Virginia
    Attorneys for Respondent
    Henry R. Glass, III
    Glass Law Offices
    South Charleston, West Virginia
    Attorney for Amicus Curiae,
    West Virginia Association of Home
    Inspectors
    CHIEF JUSTICE JENKINS delivered the Opinion of the Court.
    JUSTICE HUTCHISON and JUSTICE WOOTON concur, in part, and dissent, in
    part, and reserve the right to file separate opinions.
    SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
    1.     “Interpreting a statute or an administrative rule or regulation presents
    a purely legal question subject to de novo review.” Syllabus point 1, Appalachian Power
    Co. v. State Tax Department of West Virginia, 
    195 W. Va. 573
    , 
    466 S.E.2d 424
     (1995).
    2.     “Interpretations   of   statutes   by   bodies   charged    with    their
    administration are given great weight unless clearly erroneous.” Syllabus point 4, Security
    National Bank & Trust Co. v. First West Virginia Bancorp, Inc., 
    166 W. Va. 775
    , 
    277 S.E.2d 613
     (1981).
    3.     “The primary object in construing a statute is to ascertain and give
    effect to the intent of the Legislature.” Syllabus point 1, Smith v. State Workmen’s
    Compensation Commissioner, 
    159 W. Va. 108
    , 
    219 S.E.2d 361
     (1975).
    4.     “When a statute is clear and unambiguous and the legislative intent is
    plain, the statute should not be interpreted by the courts, and in such case it is the duty of
    the courts not to construe but to apply the statute.” Syllabus point 5, State v. General
    Daniel Morgan Post No. 548, Veterans of Foreign Wars, 
    144 W. Va. 137
    , 
    107 S.E.2d 353
    (1959).
    i
    5.      “A statute that is ambiguous must be construed before it can be
    applied.” Syllabus point 1, Farley v. Buckalew, 
    186 W. Va. 693
    , 
    414 S.E.2d 454
     (1992).
    6.      “Where a person claims an exemption from a law imposing a license
    or tax, such law is strictly construed against the person claiming the exemption.” Syllabus
    point 2, State ex rel. Lambert v. Carman, State Tax Commissioner, 
    145 W. Va. 635
    , 
    116 S.E.2d 265
     (1960).
    7.      “A valid legislative rule is entitled to substantial deference by the
    reviewing court. As a properly promulgated legislative rule, the rule can be ignored only
    if the agency has exceeded its constitutional or statutory authority or is arbitrary or
    capricious. W. Va. Code, 29A-4-2 (1982).” Syllabus point 4, in part, Appalachian Power
    Co. v. State Tax Department of West Virginia., 
    195 W. Va. 573
    , 
    466 S.E.2d 424
     (1995).
    8. “A regulation that is proposed by an agency and approved by the
    Legislature is a ‘legislative rule’ as defined by the State Administrative Procedures
    Act, W. Va. Code, 29A-1-2(d) [1982], and such a legislative rule has the force and effect
    of law.” Syllabus point 5, Smith v. West Virginia Human Rights Commission, 
    216 W. Va. 2
    , 
    602 S.E.2d 445
     (2004).
    ii
    Jenkins, Chief Justice:
    Petitioner John Keener d/b/a Mountaineer Inspection Services, LLC (“Mr.
    Keener”) appeals from an order entered June 4, 2020, by the Circuit Court of Taylor
    County. In that order, the circuit court determined that home inspectors do not meet the
    professional services tax exemption in West Virginia Code section 11-15-8 (eff. 2008) and
    that home inspection services are not professional services pursuant to West Virginia Code
    of State Rules section 110-15-8.1.1.1 (eff. 1993) (sometimes referred to as “Section 110-
    15-8.1.1.1”). The circuit court also concluded that the four-part test set forth in Section
    110-15-8.1.1.1 creates a mandatory four-part test, and not a balancing test as determined
    by the Office of Tax Appeals (“OTA”) and as argued by Mr. Keener.
    On appeal, Mr. Keener urges this Court (1) to recognize the services rendered
    by home inspectors as professional services for purposes of the tax exemption in West
    Virginia Code section 11-15-8, (2) to conclude that the language of Section 110-15-8.1.1.1
    creates a balancing test, not a mandatory, four-part test, and (3) to find that a four-year
    degree is not required to be deemed a professional. Having considered the briefs submitted
    on appeal, the appendix record, the parties’ oral arguments, and the applicable legal
    authority, we agree with the circuit court’s ruling that home inspection services do not
    qualify as professional services under West Virginia law. We also agree with the circuit
    court’s ruling regarding the four-year degree requirement. However, we find that the
    circuit court erred in concluding that each part of the four-part test must be met to be
    1
    classified as a professional. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth below, we affirm, in
    part, and reverse, in part, the rulings made by the circuit court. 1
    I.
    FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
    Mountaineer Inspection Services, LLC (“Mountaineer”) is a single-member
    limited liability company with its principal place of business located in Taylor County,
    West Virginia. Mr. Keener, Mountaineer’s sole member, is certified by the West Virginia
    State Fire Marshal to perform home inspection services. To obtain this certification, he
    passed a National Home Inspector Examination, completes at least eighty hours of
    instruction, completed high school, presented proof of general liability insurance, provided
    fingerprints, presented proof of a valid West Virginia business license, and completes
    sixteen hours of continuing education each year. See generally W. Va. C.S.R. § 87-5-4
    (eff. 2006) and W. Va. C.S.R. § 106-6-4 (eff. 2021).
    Between January 1, 2011, and September 30, 2015, Mountaineer, by and
    through Mr. Keener, failed to collect and remit consumers sales and service taxes to the
    1
    We wish to acknowledge the appearance of Amicus Curiae for the West
    Virginia Association of Home Inspectors, and to express our appreciation for its brief in
    support of the position espoused by Mr. Keener herein. We have considered its arguments
    and brief in our decision of this case.
    2
    West Virginia Tax Department (“Tax Department”). 2          In December of 2015, the Tax
    Department issued Mr. Keener a notice of assessment stating that he owed $31,137.96 in
    taxes and $5,048.24 in interest, for a total of $36,186.20. After receiving this notice, Mr.
    Keener filed a petition for reassessment with the OTA on February 5, 2016. Both parties
    agreed to waive an evidentiary hearing, and instead, they submitted the case to the OTA
    by filing briefs. Throughout the proceedings below, Mr. Keener maintained that he was
    exempt from collecting consumers sales and service tax because he and his home
    inspection company provided professional services—an exemption detailed in West
    Virginia Code section 11-15-8. 3
    On October 4, 2018, the OTA issued its Final Decision and affirmed the Tax
    Department’s assessment, concluding that home inspection services are not professional
    services for purposes of West Virginia Code section 11-15-8. However, the OTA rejected
    the notion that West Virginia Code of State Rules section 110-15-8.1.1.1 requires a four-
    year degree for an activity to be considered professional, and further concluded that Section
    110-15-8.1.1.1 cannot be characterized as a mandatory four-part test.
    2
    Since the filing of this case, the Tax Commissioner has changed, and the
    Commissioner is now Matthew Irby. Accordingly, the Court has made the necessary
    substitution of parties pursuant to Rule 41(c) of the West Virginia Rules of Appellate
    Procedure.
    3
    The text of West Virginia Code section 11-15-8 is quoted in Part III, Section
    A of this opinion, infra.
    3
    Both Mr. Keener and the Tax Department appealed the OTA’s Final
    Decision. 4 Upon consideration of the briefs submitted by the parties, the circuit court
    entered a final order on June 4, 2020, affirming in part and reversing in part the decision
    of the OTA. The circuit court concluded that home inspection services do not qualify as
    professional services for purposes of the tax exemption in West Virginia Code section 11-
    15-8; that the OTA erroneously ruled that a four-year college degree is not a requirement
    for an activity to be classified as a professional service; and that the OTA erred by ruling
    that Section 110-15-8.1.1.1 sets forth a balancing test as opposed to a true four-part test.
    Mr. Keener now appeals the June 4, 2020 decision of the circuit court.
    II.
    STANDARD OF REVIEW
    This case is before this Court on appeal from the circuit court’s order
    affirming in part, and reversing in part, a decision of the West Virginia Office of Tax
    Appeals.
    In an administrative appeal from the decision of the
    West Virginia Office of Tax Appeals, this Court will review
    the final order of the circuit court pursuant to the standards of
    review in the State Administrative Procedures Act set forth in
    W. Va. Code § 29A-5-4(g) [1988]. Findings of fact of the
    administrative law judge will not be set aside or vacated unless
    clearly wrong, and, although administrative interpretation of
    4
    Mr. Keener appealed the OTA’s decision to the Circuit Court of Taylor
    County, and the Tax Department appealed the decision to the Circuit Court of Kanawha
    County. The Tax Department’s case was transferred to the Circuit Court of Taylor County
    and consolidated with Mr. Keener’s case.
    4
    State tax provisions will be afforded sound consideration, this
    Court will review questions of law de novo.
    Syl. pt. 1, Griffith v. ConAgra Brands, Inc., 
    229 W. Va. 190
    , 
    728 S.E.2d 74
     (2012). Accord
    Syl. pt. 1, Ashland Specialty Co. v. Steager, 
    241 W. Va. 1
    , 
    818 S.E.2d 827
     (2018).
    West Virginia Code section 29A-5-4 (eff. 1998) provides:
    The court may affirm the order or decision of the agency
    or remand the case for further proceedings. It shall reverse,
    vacate or modify the order or decision of the agency if the
    substantial rights of the petitioner or petitioners have been
    prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences,
    conclusions, decision or order are:
    (1) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions;
    or
    (2) In excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of
    the agency; or
    (3) Made upon unlawful procedures; or
    (4) Affected by other error of law; or
    (5) Clearly wrong in view of the reliable, probative and
    substantial evidence on the whole record; or
    (6) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of
    discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of
    discretion.
    Therefore, findings of fact from the OTA will not be set aside or vacated unless clearly
    wrong, and, although administrative interpretation of State tax provisions will be afforded
    sound consideration, this Court will review questions of law de novo.
    Additionally, throughout this opinion, we are tasked with interpreting certain
    statutes and rules applicable to the issues sub judice.       “Interpreting a statute or an
    administrative rule or regulation presents a purely legal question subject to de novo
    5
    review.” Syl. pt. 1, Appalachian Power Co. v. State Tax Dep’t of W. Va., 
    195 W. Va. 573
    ,
    
    466 S.E.2d 424
     (1995). Accord Syl. pt. 1, In re Tax Assessment Against Am. Bituminous
    Power Partners, L.P., 
    208 W. Va. 250
    , 
    539 S.E.2d 757
     (2000). “Interpretations of statutes
    by bodies charged with their administration are given great weight unless clearly
    erroneous.” Syl. pt. 4, Security Nat’l Bank & Trust Co. v. First W. Va. Bancorp, Inc., 
    166 W. Va. 775
    , 
    277 S.E.2d 613
     (1981). Mindful of these principles, we now consider the
    parties’ arguments.
    III.
    DISCUSSION
    The issue presented in this matter is whether the services provided by home
    inspectors are professional services. In the case sub judice, Mr. Keener asserts that the
    circuit court erred by determining that, as a home inspector, he does not provide
    professional services for purposes of a tax exemption espoused in West Virginia Code
    section 11-15-8. In particular, he contends that the circuit court erred in concluding
    (1) that Section 110-15-8.1.1.1 sets forth a mandatory four-part test for determining
    whether an occupation is professional, and (2) that a four-year college degree is required
    for an activity to be considered to provide professional services.
    In response, the Tax Department contends that its interpretation of Section
    110-15-8.1.1.1 as a mandatory, four-part test that requires a four-year degree is
    permissible and is the correct and controlling interpretation of the legislative rule at issue,
    6
    and therefore this Court should affirm the decision of the circuit court determining that
    home inspection services are not exempt from the consumers sales and service tax.
    Because this case requires us to examine the statute governing consumers
    sales and service tax, we are mindful that “[t]he primary object in construing a statute is to
    ascertain and give effect to the intent of the Legislature.” Syl. pt. 1, Smith v. State
    Workmen’s Comp. Comm’r, 
    159 W. Va. 108
    , 
    219 S.E.2d 361
     (1975). Therefore, where
    the legislative intent is plainly expressed, we are required to apply rather than interpret the
    statute at issue. “When a statute is clear and unambiguous and the legislative intent is
    plain, the statute should not be interpreted by the courts, and in such case it is the duty of
    the courts not to construe but to apply the statute.” Syl. pt. 5, State v. Gen. Daniel Morgan
    Post No. 548, Veterans of Foreign Wars, 
    144 W. Va. 137
    , 
    107 S.E.2d 353
     (1959).
    Conversely, “[a] statute that is ambiguous must be construed before it can be applied.” Syl.
    pt. 1, Farley v. Buckalew, 
    186 W. Va. 693
    , 
    414 S.E.2d 454
     (1992). With these standards
    in mind, we now proceed to consider the arguments of the parties.
    A. Professional Services
    West Virginia imposes a general consumers sales and service tax “for the
    privilege of selling tangible personal property or custom software and for the privilege of
    furnishing certain selected services.” 
    W. Va. Code § 11-15-3
    (a) (eff. 2003). If a vendor
    fails to collect and remit the consumers sales tax, the vendor is personally liable for the tax.
    7
    See 
    W. Va. Code § 11-15
    -4a (eff. 2003). In order to prevent evasion, all sales are presumed
    to be taxable until proven otherwise. See 
    W. Va. Code § 11-15-6
    (b) (eff. 2009).
    However, the statute does provide some exemptions; in particular, West
    Virginia Code section 11-15-8 provides, in relevant part:
    The provisions of this article apply not only to selling
    tangible personal property and custom software, but also to the
    furnishing of all services, except professional and personal
    services, and except those services furnished by businesses
    subject to the control of the public service commission when
    the service or the manner in which it is delivered is subject to
    regulation by the public service commission.
    (Emphasis added).
    Because West Virginia Code sections 11-15-1 to -34, which comprise the
    relevant portion of the West Virginia tax code, do not define the term professional
    services, we must turn to the duly promulgated legislative regulations pertaining to
    consumers sales and service tax. West Virginia Code of State Rule section 110-15-8.1.1.1
    states:
    Professional services, as defined in Section 2 of these
    regulations, are rendered by physicians, dentists, lawyers,
    certified public accountants, public accountants, optometrists,
    architects, professional engineers, registered professional
    nurses, veterinarians, licensed          physical    therapists,
    ophthalmologists, chiropractors, podiatrists, embalmers,
    osteopathic physicians and surgeons, registered sanitarians,
    pharmacists, psychiatrists, psychoanalysts, psychologists,
    landscape architects, registered professional court reporters,
    licensed social workers, enrolled agents, professional foresters,
    8
    licensed real estate appraisers and certified real estate
    appraisers licensed in accordance with W. Va. Code [§] 37-14-
    1 et seq., nursing home administrators, licensed professional
    counselors and licensed real estate brokers.
    Section 110-15-8.1.1.1 continues, and also lists services that are classified as nonprofessional
    services:
    Persons who provide services classified as nonprofessional for
    consumers sales and service tax purposes include interior
    decorators, private detectives/investigators, security guards,
    bookkeepers, forestors [sic], truck driving schools, hearing aid
    dealers/fitters, contractors, electricians, musicians, and
    hospital administrators; the foregoing listing is not all-
    inclusive but intended as containing examples of trades and
    occupations.
    Lastly, Section 110-15-8.1.1.1 grants limited discretion to the Tax Department and concludes by
    providing a standard for the Tax Department to use when classifying non-listed services as either
    professional or nonprofessional:
    The determination as to whether other activities are
    “professional” in nature will be determined by the State Tax
    Division on a case-by-case basis unless the Legislature amends
    W. Va. Code [§] 11-15-1 et seq. to provide that a specified
    activity is “professional.” When making a determination as to
    whether other activities fall within the “professional”
    classification, the Tax Department will consider such things as
    the level of education required for the activity, the nature and
    extent of nationally recognized standards for performance,
    licensing requirements on the State and national level, and the
    extent of continuing education requirements.
    Now that we have established the underlying principles that will guide our
    resolution of the issues presented in this case, we consider whether home inspection
    9
    services are professional services for purposes of the consumers sales tax exemption in
    West Virginia Code section 11-15-8.
    B. Determination of Whether Home Inspection
    Services are Professional Services
    Mr. Keener first contends that the circuit court erred when it held that the
    standard set forth at the end of Section 110-15-8.1.1.1 constitutes a mandatory, four-part
    test where all four factors must be met for an occupation to be considered professional. See
    W. Va. C.S.R. § 110-15-8.1.1.1 (“[T]he Tax Department will consider such things as the
    level of education required for the activity, the nature and extent of nationally recognized
    standards for performance, licensing requirements on the State and national level, and the
    extent of continuing education requirements.”). Rather, Mr. Keener contends that the
    standard is a balancing test and that home inspectors should be classified as professionals
    because of the stringent requirements imposed upon them. According to Mr. Keener, the
    work of home inspectors is akin to that of lawyers and other professions listed as
    professional services in Section 110-15-8.1.1.1. He argues, that in both those professions
    and in home inspections, clients rely on the individuals’ education, experience, and
    professional judgment in making major life decisions. More specifically, Mr. Keener
    argues that although home inspectors are not explicitly identified in Section 110-15-8.1.1.1
    as an occupation providing professional services, home inspectors should be classified as
    such because they meet the rigorous considerations set forth in the four-part test of Section
    110-15-8.1.1.1.
    10
    When claiming an exemption from the consumers sales and service tax,
    taxpayers are under a heavy burden to prove that their services qualify as “professional.”
    This Court has held that “[w]here a person claims an exemption from a law imposing a
    license or tax, such law is strictly construed against the person claiming the exemption.”
    Syl. pt. 2, State ex rel. Lambert v. Carman, State Tax Comm’n, 
    145 W. Va. 635
    , 
    116 S.E.2d 265
     (1960). In the case of Wooddell v. Dailey, 
    160 W. Va. 65
    , 
    230 S.E.2d 466
     (1976),
    this Court addressed a similar query regarding whether the services of an interior designer
    could be classified as professional services under West Virginia Code section 11-15-8. 5 In
    Wooddell, we ruled that “any such other profession must be clearly established as
    professional by the one who asserts that the services rendered by him in connection
    therewith are ‘exempt’ or ‘excepted’ and hence not taxable.” 160 W. Va. at 70, 
    230 S.E.2d at 470
    .   Therefore, because home inspectors are not explicitly listed as providing
    professional services, Mr. Keener—and other similarly situated individuals—are required
    to meet a high bar to prove that their services qualify under the professional services tax
    exemption.
    According to Mr. Keener’s brief, to become a certified home inspector in
    West Virginia, individuals
    must (1) pass the National Home Inspector Examination
    offered by the Examination Board of Professional Home
    5
    Wooddell v. Dailey was decided in 1977 under the statutory framework in
    existence at that time. The corresponding legislative rule was promulgated in 1993. Once
    promulgated, the legislative rule explicitly identified the services of interior designers as
    “nonprofessional.” See W. Va. C.S.R. § 110-15-8.1.1.1.
    11
    Inspectors or other comparable examination, as determined by
    the State Fire Marshal; (2) present proof of having conducted
    business as a home inspector for three (3) years prior to the
    effective date of the rule or proof of satisfactory completion of
    at least eighty (80) hours of instruction directly relating to the
    performance of home inspections; (3) have a high school
    degree or its equivalent; (4) present proof of and maintain
    general liability insurance of at least $250,000; and, (5) provide
    fingerprints for examination by the West Virginia State Police
    and Federal Bureau of Investigation. W. Va. Code St. R. § 87-
    5-4.
    Pet. Br. at 2.
    Because home inspectors are required to meet such stringent requirements,
    Mr. Keener argues that the circuit court should have balanced the considerations in Section
    110-15-8.1.1, rather than require a fulfillment of each factor. Since this was not done, Mr.
    Keener contends that the circuit court erred when it ruled that the language of West Virginia
    Code of State Rules section 110-15-8.1.1.1 is a mandatory, four-part test. The legislative
    rule provides that
    [w]hen making a determination as to whether other activities
    fall within the “professional” classification, the Tax
    Department will consider such things as the level of education
    required for the activity, the nature and extent of nationally
    recognized standards for performance, licensing requirements
    on the State and national level, and the extent of continuing
    education requirements.
    W. Va. C.S.R. § 110-15-8.1.1.1. Mr. Keener argues that because the rule does not contain
    the word shall, that it is not a mandatory four-part test, but rather a list of considerations
    that should be balanced. Therefore, he asks this Court to reverse the circuit court’s decision
    12
    concluding that the rule is a mandatory, four-part test, where all four factors must be
    satisfied.
    In reading the language of the legislative rule, we find that the circuit court
    erred in finding that Section 110-15-8.1.1.1 provides a mandatory, four-part test, where
    each criterion must be satisfied. However, that is not to say that this Court finds Section
    110-15-8.1.1.1 to be a mere balancing test. The language of the rule directs that the Tax
    Department “will consider such things as” the required level of education, the nature and
    extent of national standards, licensing requirements, and continuing education
    requirements when analyzing whether an occupation provides professional services. See
    W. Va. C.S.R. § 110-15-8.1.1.1.
    The phrase “will consider” indicates a mandatory obligation on the part of
    the Tax Department to consider the four listed factors, and the phrase “such things as”
    indicates that the analysis is not limited to the four listed factors. The word will creates an
    obligation to perform. See Bryan A. Garner, A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage 941-
    942 (2d ed., Oxford U. Press 1995). Yet, a mandatory obligation to consider is not
    equivalent to a mandatory “all or nothing” test where all factors must be satisfied. Rather,
    this Court concludes that the plain language of the rule requires the Tax Department to
    mandatorily consider the listed criteria at a minimum, and not to the exclusion of other
    factors.
    13
    Based on these determinations, an individual seeking to be classified as a
    professional—for purposes of the tax exemption in West Virginia Code section 11-15-8—
    must not satisfy all four factors set forth in Section 110-15-8.1.1.1, but the Tax Department
    must consider the listed criteria at a minimum, and not to the exclusion of additional factors
    that may arise over time. Therefore, we conclude that the circuit court erred in determining
    Section 110-15-8.1.1 to be a mandatory, four-part test where all factors must be satisfied.
    Mr. Keener next contends that the four-year college degree requirement
    imposed by the Tax Department and accepted by the circuit court is contrary to the plain
    language of Section 110-15-8.1.1.1.        Mr. Keener asserts that the Legislature has
    unambiguously announced that the Tax Department must consider the level of education
    required for an activity before determining whether that activity provides professional
    services. Absent from this rule, however, is the four-year college degree requirement
    propounded by the Tax Department.          Mr. Keener alleges that even if the rule was
    ambiguous, the four-year degree requirement is an impermissible exercise of the Tax
    Department’s gap-filling authority because the requirement is arbitrary and directly
    contrary to the language of the rule. Therefore, Mr. Keener contends that the circuit court
    erred in finding that a four-year college degree is required before an occupation can be
    considered a professional service. In support of his argument, Mr. Keener asserts that
    Section 110-15-8.1.1.1 is unambiguous. We disagree. Pursuant to these provisions, if the
    services provided by home inspectors are professional services then they are exempted
    from the general requirement of the collection of consumers sales and service tax; however,
    14
    West Virginia Code sections 11-15-1 to -34 do not define the term professional services.
    The absence of such a definition makes it unfeasible for this Court to say that this statute
    is clear and unambiguous because further statutory construction is required to resolve this
    obvious ambiguity.
    If a statute is silent or ambiguous on a specific issue, and the administrative
    agency is authorized to promulgate legislative rules—in this case the Tax Department—
    then the administrative agency has discretion to interpret the statute. See, e.g., Syl. pt. 4,
    in part, Appalachian Power Co., 
    195 W. Va. 573
    , 
    466 S.E.2d 424
     (1995) (“If legislative
    intent is not clear, a reviewing court may not simply impose its own construction of the
    statute in reviewing a legislative rule. Rather, if the statute is silent or ambiguous with
    respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency’s answer is
    based on a permissible construction of the statute.”); Syl. pt. 7, in part, Lincoln County Bd.
    of Educ. v. Adkins, 
    188 W. Va. 430
    , 
    424 S.E.2d 775
     (1992) (“Interpretations of statutes by
    bodies charged with their administration are given great weight unless clearly erroneous.”).
    Under West Virginia law, “[a] regulation that is proposed by an agency and
    approved by the Legislature is a ‘legislative rule’ as defined by the State Administrative
    Procedures Act, W. Va. Code, 29A-1-2(d) [1982], and such a legislative rule has the force
    and effect of law.” Syl. pt. 5, Smith v. W. Va. Human Rights Comm’n, 
    216 W. Va. 2
    , 
    602 S.E.2d 445
     (2004). The State Administrative Procedures Act, West Virginia Code section
    29A-1-2(d) (eff. 2015), defines a “legislative rule” in the following manner:
    15
    “Legislative rule” means every rule . . . proposed or
    promulgated by an agency pursuant to this chapter. Legislative
    rule includes every rule which, when promulgated after or
    pursuant to authorization of the legislature, has (1) the force of
    law, or (2) supplies a basis for the imposition of civil or
    criminal liability, or (3) grants or denies a specific benefit.
    Every rule which, when effective, is determinative on any issue
    affecting private rights, privileges or interests is a legislative
    rule.
    This Court has held that in reviewing an agency’s construction of a statute,
    we consider two separate questions: whether the Legislature’s intent is clear and whether
    the agency’s construction of the statute is permissible. Appalachian Power, 195 W. Va. at
    583, 
    466 S.E.2d at 434
     (quoting Sniffin v. Cline, 
    193 W. Va. 370
    , 373-74, 
    456 S.E.2d 451
    ,
    454-55 (1995)). If the Legislature has spoken directly to the precise issue in question, the
    review ends. Appalachian Power, 195 W. Va. at 583, 
    466 S.E.2d at 434
    .                  If the
    Legislature’s intent is unclear, then the court moves to considering whether the
    construction is permissible. 
    Id.
     Courts should “presume that a legislature says in a statute
    what it means and means in a statute what it says.” 
    Id.
     (quoting Martin v. Randolph County
    Bd. of Educ., 
    195 W. Va. 297
    , 312, 
    465 S.E.2d 399
    ,414 (1995)). If there is a gap in the
    Legislature’s enactments on a particular issue, then an agency, within their rule-making
    authority, may fill the gap, but the agency’s gap-filling rulemaking should not stand if it is
    arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute. Appalachian Power, 195 W. Va.
    at 589, 
    466 S.E.2d at 440
    .
    16
    As stated above, West Virginia Code sections 11-15-1 to -34 do not define
    the term professional services. Therefore, we must turn to West Virginia Code of State
    Rules section 110-15-8.1.1.1. Here, the legislative rule at issue expressly designates thirty-
    seven services as professional services, which are, thus, exempted from the consumers
    sales and service tax.    Home inspection services are not enumerated in the list of
    professional services. Likewise, home inspection services also are not listed in the
    specified nonprofessional services. It would be inconceivable, and even absurd, to expect
    the Legislature to classify every single occupation as either professional or
    nonprofessional. Therefore, while the Legislature is free to designate any service as
    professional or nonprofessional regardless of the educational requirement, the Tax
    Department does not have the same unfettered discretion. Rather, the Legislature delegates
    limited authority 6 to the Tax Department to classify additional professional services on a
    “case-by-case basis” in accordance with the criteria expressly authorized by the Legislature
    in Section 110-15-8.1.1.1. When classifying non-listed services as either professional or
    nonprofessional, the four-part test detailed in Section 110-15-8.1.1.1 is used: the level of
    education, the nature and extent of nationally recognized standards, the licensing
    requirements, and the continuing education requirements. See W. Va. C.S.R. § 110-15-
    8.1.1.1.
    6
    We recognize that an agency’s authority to fill “gaps” in legislative
    enactments is subject to the provisions of W. Va. Code § 29A-3-2 (eff. 1982).
    17
    The four-year degree rule contested by Mr. Keener is not a new or random
    requirement. Although the legislative rule is silent as to the level of education required,
    the Tax Department has long taken the position that a high school diploma or a GED is not
    sufficient to fulfill the educational requirements under Section 110-15-8.1.1.1, and that a
    relevant four-year degree from an accredited college or university is required. See, e.g.,
    W. Va. Tax Dec. 2006-340C, 
    2007 WL 9617856
    , *1 (W. Va. Off. Tax App. Mar. 27, 2007)
    (concluding that having a four-year degree is a requirement and that a degree germane to
    the activity at issue is one that tends to divide professions from trade or skilled
    occupations).
    It has been argued that because some of the professional services listed in
    Section 110-15-8.1.1.1 do not require any more education than a high school diploma, that
    a four-year degree cannot be deemed a necessary requirement to qualify for the
    professional services tax exemption. For example, real estate brokers (
    W. Va. Code § 30
    -
    40-14 (eff. 2002)), real estate appraisers (W. Va. C.S.R. §190-2-1 (eff. 2020)), and
    embalmers (W. Va. C.S.R. § 6-1-3.1.2.a (eff. 2021)) are all listed in Section 110-15-8.1.1.1
    as providing professional services; however, those occupations do not require a college
    degree. We are not persuaded by this argument.
    Here, Section 110-15-8.1.1.1 gives the Tax Department the authority to
    determine whether additional non-specified occupations fall within the scope of
    professional services. Of particular importance here is the level of education required for
    18
    an occupation to be considered “professional.” As evident from the language of the rule,
    it is clear that the Legislature did not specify how much education is required—this
    question was left open.
    Although this Court has not addressed this issue before, the OTA has spoken
    on this issue in previous tax appeals. More specifically, the OTA has stated:
    The requirement that in order to qualify as a profession
    an occupation must satisfy the educational requirement of a
    four-year college degree is one that was established by the
    State Tax Commissioner’s Office of Hearings and Appeals.[7]
    This tribunal, the West Virginia Office of Tax Appeals, is
    independent of the State Tax Commissioner. Decisions issued
    by the Tax Commissioner’s Office of Hearings and Appeals
    are not precedents that are binding on this Office. However,
    this Office has chosen to continue to adhere to this educational
    requirement because it is one that is reasonable in light of the
    purposes and goals that the Legislature attempted to achieve in
    enacting the statute and approving the legislative rule. A
    minimum requirement of a four-year degree that is germane to
    the activity (plus the other requirements of the legislative rule)
    is one that tends to divide professions from mere trades or
    skilled occupations.
    This Office recognizes that this requirement of a four-
    year college degree is, in a very technical sense, “arbitrary.” As
    the Circuit Court of Kanawha County held in Wideman &
    Associates, Inc. v. Paige, Civil Action No. 93-C-5726 (Cir. Ct.
    Kan. Co. 06/27/95), the legislative rule, on its face, is devoid
    of any fixed number of respectively weighted standards that
    7
    “[L]egislative changes resulted in the creation of a successor tribunal to the
    Tax Commissioner’s Office of Hearings and Appeals: the Office of Tax Appeals.”
    Concept Min., Inc. v. Helton, 
    217 W. Va. 298
    , 300, 
    617 S.E.2d 845
    , 847 (2005). The Office
    of Tax Appeals began operations on January 1, 2003.
    19
    can be used for guidance by taxpayers, the Tax Commissioner,
    the courts and, logically, this Office as the specialized state tax
    tribunal. In light of the lack of guidance provided by the
    legislative rule, any standard applied will, of necessity, be
    arbitrary, whether it be a rule applied to all occupations, as this
    Office is doing, or whether it establishes some rule respecting
    the education required (or one of the other standards) for an
    occupation on a case-by-case basis. The only thing that this
    Office, a specialized state tax tribunal, and the courts can hope
    to do when creating some necessarily arbitrary rule is to avoid
    being capricious at the same time. This Office’s goal in
    establishing the requirement that an occupation must require a
    four-year college degree in order to be considered a profession
    is to establish a clear, bright line rule that can readily be
    understood and applied, in advance, by all taxpayers, the State
    Tax Commissioner and this Office.
    W. Va. Tax Dec. 2006-340C, 
    2007 WL 9617856
    , at *12 (W. Va. Off. Tax App. Mar. 27,
    2007) (footnote added).
    We are guided and persuaded by the sound reasoning of the OTA as set forth
    in the preceding excerpt. In the case sub judice, a gap existed in the education requirement
    for determining whether a particular occupation provides a professional service, and the
    Tax Department properly used its discretion to clarify the ambiguity.               Based upon
    established precedent, the Tax Department interpreted the education requirement in the
    rule as requiring a four-year college degree for a service to be classified as a professional
    service. In doing so, the Tax Department did not act randomly or beyond its authority.
    Rather, the Tax Department used the four-year degree to provide a bright line rule that can
    be easily followed and applied in future cases. Accordingly, we conclude that the Tax
    Department acted within the discretion afforded to it by the Legislature, and the circuit
    20
    court did not err when finding that the four-year degree requirement was a permissible
    exercise of the Tax Department’s rule-making authority.
    While this Court has never directly addressed whether home inspectors
    provide professional services, this issue has been previously answered by the Tax
    Department in its administrative decisions. See, e.g., W. Va. Tax Dec. 2003-418C & 2003-
    487RC, 
    2004 WL 1416147
    , at *5 (W. Va. Off. Tax App. Mar. 29, 2004) (“The
    ‘professional services’ exception from services in general subject to the consumers’ sales
    and service tax, see 
    W. Va. Code §§ 11-15-8
     [1955] and 11-15-2(s) [1994, 1998, 2001],
    does not apply to the services of a home inspector, where, as here, such an inspector fails
    to prove that his or her services comport with the mandatory four-part test of the legislative
    regulation set forth in 110 C.S.R. 15, § 8.1.1.1 (effective on or after May 1, 1992), and in
    fact fails to prove that home inspection services satisfy any of the four requirements.”);
    W. Va. Tax Dec. 96-098CS, 
    1998 WL 1048430
    , at *3 (W. Va. Off. Hrg. App. Sept. 21,
    1998) (“Based upon the review of the criteria, the Petitioner has failed to meet the burden
    of proof required to clearly establish that home inspection service is a professional service.
    Thus, the Petitioner’s services rendered in his capacity as a home inspector are not exempt
    from consumers sales and service tax as professional service.”).
    While it should be noted that these decisions were issued prior to the
    certification requirements set forth by the State Fire Marshal in West Virginia Code of
    State Rules section 87-5-4, it remains that the since-promulgated requirements only impose
    21
    minimal educational requirements. See W. Va. C.S.R. § 87-5-4.2. Under the State Fire
    Marshal’s promulgated rule, a home inspector must have “[s]successfully completed high
    school or its equivalent.” Id. As noted by the circuit court in its order, when asked “to
    classify a service that is not specifically designated as a professional service in the
    legislative rule, the Tax Department has long taken the position that a high school diploma
    or a GED is not enough to qualify as providing a professional service.” The circuit court
    further stated that “[t]o be classified as providing a professional service, the minimum
    education required to provide that service must be a four-year college degree or its
    equivalent.”
    After careful review of the pertinent law, we conclude that the circuit court
    did not err in finding that home inspectors are not professionals under West Virginia Code
    of State Rules section 110-15-8.1.1.1, and also did not err in upholding the four-year degree
    requirement, as we find it was a permissible exercise of the Tax Department’s rule-making
    authority. Accordingly, we conclude that home inspectors do not provide professional
    services for purposes of the professional services tax exemption in West Virginia Code
    section 11-15-8. However, we find that the circuit court did err in finding that Section 110-
    15-8.1.1.1 created a mandatory four-part test where each factor must be satisfied.
    22
    IV.
    CONCLUSION
    For the reasons set forth above, we affirm, in part, and reverse, in part, the
    circuit court’s order.
    Affirmed, in part; Reversed, in part.
    23