which is to prevent double taxation. In this case, as the State points out, there is no evidence that 7-Eleven charged or collected sales tax for any of the data-processing services it performed for out-of-state franchise stores. Therefore, the State urges that, as a matter of public policy, 7-Eleven should be precluded from claiming the exemption in the absence of evidence that it actually charged sales tax to its franchisees “for the provision of these asserted taxable data processing services.” 7-Eleven responds that the sale-for-resale exemption does not require that the reseller actually collect sales tax on the taxable item, analogizing to resale transactions between contractors and the federal government. See Day & Zimmermann, Inc. v. Calvert, 519 S.W.2d 106, 110-11 (Tex.1975) (<HOLDING>); see also Raytheon E-Systems, 101 S.W.3d at
recognizing federal constitutional claim against the united states holding that the county government not the federal government was liable for the taking of an air easement over plaintiffs property even though the airport was funded in part by a federal grant based on compliance with federal regulations holding a federal credit union not to be a government actor for constitutional purposes holding that contractor who transferred title of items to federal government could claim saleforresale exemption even though ultimate resale would not actually be taxed based on constitutional prohibition against states taxing federal government holding that title ii of the ada is not applicable to the federal government