object” test determines “whether to treat a transaction as a taxable transfer of tangible personal property or the nontaxable performance of , a service.” , Sneary, 865 S.W.2d at 345. The Court has applied this test only in-cases in which the intangible element of the transaction is accompanied by or transferred through an item of-tangible personal property that has relatively little value on its own. See, e.g., id.; see also,W. Blue Print Co. v. Dir. of Revenue, 311 S.W,3d 789 (Mo. banc 2010); James v. TRES Computer Serv., Inc., 642 S.W.2d 347 (Mo. banc 1982). Bartlett argues that because CRC’s installation services were the “true object” of the parties’ transaction, those services should not be subject to use tax. For support, Bartlett cites Western Blue Print, 311 S.W.3d at 789-92 (<HOLDING>). But neither the “true object” test nor
holding that the fact that defendants sales in forum were less than 5 percent of its total sales volume was irrelevant so long as its sales were part of a regular course of dealing and were not isolated or exceptional events holding that plan documents could be considered without converting the motion to one for summary judgment even though the complaint referred only to the plan and not its associated documents holding evidence of uncharged prior cocaine sales with numerous similarities to those for which the defendant was on trial admissible for among other purposes showing the existence of a common plan involving the prior sales and the transactions which were the subject of the charges pending against the defendant holding that plan documents could be incorporated without converting the motion to one for summary judgment even though the complaint referred only to the plan and not the accompanying documents holding that because the true object of western blue prints business was the service of converting documents into electronic format not the sale of compact disks its transactions were not subject to sales tax