THIBODEAUX, Chief Judge.

The plaintiff, Cynthia Bridges as Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Revenue ("the Department"), appeals the trial court judgment denying its motion for summary judgment, and granting the cross-motion for summary judgment filed by the defendant taxpayer, Cepolk Corporation ("Cepolk"). Finding that the Department proved that the movable items purchased by Cepolk were subject to sales and use tax, and that Cepolk did not meet its burden of proving an exemption to the taxes, we reverse the judgment in favor of Cepolk and grant summary judgment to the Department.

I.

ISSUES

We must decide whether the trial court erred:

II.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Cepolk is a non-resident, Nevada corporation with contracts to modify or replace the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems at the Fort Polk family housing complex in Louisiana. Cepolk asserted that the construction phase of its work was completed in 1994 and that it continued to provide bi-annual maintenance on the water heaters, air conditioning filters, florescent lights, and ad hoc system maintenance when requested. The Department conducted a sales and use tax audit of Cepolk for the period of March 1, 2006, through December 31, 2008. The audit revealed that Cepolk had failed to pay the sales tax on approximately $4,000,000.00 in purchases of materials and supplies from vendors such as Lowes, The Home Depot, Sherwin-Williams, Solar Supply, Inc., and various other electrical, plumbing, and heating and air conditioning supply companies.

The purchases included small and large items such as lumber, nails, miscellaneous tools, gypsum, duct tape, wire strippers, water heaters, nuts, bolts, batteries, saw kits, sinks, refrigerators, and numerous other items used by the company in fulfilling its contracts. They also included monthly rentals on equipment paid to a financial entity, as well as payments to Home Depot Credit Services.

The Department filed suit to collect $160,573.87 in tax, plus interest of $46,145.60 as of August 20, 2010, and penalties of $4,779.00, for a total of $211,498.47, plus additional interest under La.R.S. 47:1601. Cepolk asserted that it had fulfilled any tax obligations to the State and that the purchases at issue were made by Cepolk as an agent for the United States Government ("Government" or "federal Government").

The Department filed a motion and supplemental motion for summary judgment, attaching four contracts to which Cepolk was a party, and asserting that Cepolk was not a purchasing agent for the Government and was not exempt from the tax under the applicable Louisiana statutes and jurisprudence. Cepolk filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, attaching various contracts and asserting that it was unable to obtain certain others that were incorporated by reference.

The motions were heard on March 4, 2013. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Cepolk and dismissed the Department's suit to collect the taxes. For the reasons below, we reverse and render.

III.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The grant or denial of a motion for summary judgment is reviewed de novo, "using the same criteria that govern the trial court's determination of whether summary judgment is appropriate; i.e. whether there is any genuine issue of material fact, and whether the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Samaha v. Rau, 07-1726, pp. 3-4 (La. 2/26/08), 977 So.2d 880, 882-83 (citations omitted); La. Code Civ.P. art. 966.

IV.

LAW AND DISCUSSION

Evidence

As a threshold matter, the contracts entered into evidence at the summary judgment hearing in March of 2013 were the exhibits of the Department, which specifically moved to have all of its exhibits admitted into evidence. Cepolk did not move to have its exhibits entered into evidence at any time during the hearing. We, therefore, cannot consider the exhibits merely attached to Cepolk's cross-motion for summary judgment.1 Accordingly, our legal analysis will address the four contracts properly admitted into evidence, which are:

Applicable Law

Louisiana Revised Statutes 47:302(A)2 imposes a tax upon the retail sale3 and the use,4 consumption, distribution, and storage of tangible personal property,5 unless the purchases are specifically excluded or exempt from taxation. "Exemptions from taxation are to be strictly construed against the person claiming the exemption[,] and they must be clearly and affirmatively established." Bill Roberts, Inc. v. McNamara, 539 So.2d 1226, 1229 (La.1989). Items of tangible personal property, such as construction materials, are considered corporeal movables, as used in the Louisiana Civil Code, until they are incorporated into an immovable and become a component part of the immovable building or construction. City of New Orleans v. Baumer Foods, Inc., 532 So.2d 1381 (La.1988); See La.Civ.Code arts. 471,6 472.7

Items of tangible personal property that are purchased for resale as items of tangible personal property, for example by dealers, are not taxed upon the original purchase. See La.R.S. 47:301(10)(a)(i). However, the dealer must ultimately pay the sales tax when he resells the items. Louisiana Revised Statutes La.R.S 47:314 establishes a presumption that tangible personal property held by a dealer is to be taxed:

On the other hand, contractors who install the items they purchase and provide services and labor, rather than studying the markets for resale of the items, are not considered dealers:

State v. J. Watts Kearny & Sons, 181 La. 554, 160 So. 77, 78-79 (La.1934).

In Claiborne Sales Co. v. Collector of Revenue, 233 La. 1061, 99 So.2d 345 (La. 1957), the Louisiana Supreme Court found that tile sold to tile contractors, for use in performing tile installation contracts on immovable property, were taxable as retail sales upon purchase by the tile contractors. This is so even though the sales were made in wholesale quantities, sufficient to complete one job or for the tile contractors to keep in stock for future jobs.

In Bill Roberts, Inc., 539 So.2d 1226, the supreme court cited the above cases finding the contractor to be the ultimate consumer of the materials he installs, and held the contractor performing electrical contracting services for various governmental agencies liable for the sales tax on the contractor's purchases of materials and equipment. The equipment and supplies purchased by the contractor were tangible personal property under La.R.S. 47:301. Id.

Similarly, in Amberg Trucking, Inc. v. Tarver, 626 So.2d 511 (La.App. 3 Cir.1993), we held the road contractor who purchased supplies for use on construction contracts with governmental agencies liable for the sales tax on the items.

Concordia Parish School Bd. v. Russ, 491 So.2d 1368, 1372-73 (La.App. 3 Cir.), writ denied, 496 So.2d 350 (La.1986) (emphasis added).8

If the purchaser can show that it is a designated purchasing agent for an exempt entity, and that title to the items passed to the exempt entity at the time of purchase, the purchaser is also exempt from the levy of sales and use taxes. F. Miller & Sons, Inc. v. Calcasieu Parish School Bd., 02-1680 (La. 2/25/03), 838 So.2d 1269; La.Admin.Code 61:I.4301. Under La. R.S. 47:301(10)(g) (emphasis added), a government contractor can be exempt from sales tax if it can show that its purchases of corporeal movable property were "intended for future sale to the United States government or its agencies, when title to such property is transferred to the United States government or its agencies prior to the incorporation of that property into a final product."

Contentions of the Parties

Here, Cepolk asserted that it was exempt from taxation because it purchased all materials on behalf of the Government, and that it resold the movables to the U.S. Army prior to their incorporation into the immovable housing units under La.R.S. 47:301(10)(g). Therefore, the contracts were contracts of sale and not construction contracts subject to the traditional view of contractors.

In its reasons for judgment, the trial court found in the affirmative on all three contentions of Cepolk. In its judgment, the trial court stated that, as a matter of law, the Department did not prove all essential elements of its claims against Cepolk, and, as a matter of law, the Department did not prove that the Louisiana sales and use taxes applied to the purchases at issue. Only the Department appealed, asserting that the trial court erred in each of its findings. Cepolk filed a response, reasserting its motion for summary judgment contentions.

As a threshold matter, the essence of the trial court's ruling "as a matter of law" is based upon its interpretation of the contracts and the applicable statutes and jurisprudence in this case. The trial judge, however, did not address any factual issues raised in the cross-motions for summary judgment. We review a grant or a denial of a motion for summary judgment de novo. Bonin v. Westport Ins. Corp., 05-886 (La. 5/17/06), 930 So.2d 906. That is, there is no deference to the trial judge's legal findings, and we make an independent review of the evidence in determining whether there is no genuine issue of material fact and whether the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law under La.Code Civ.P. art. 966. See Marigny v. Allstate Ins. Co., 95-952 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/31/96), 667 So.2d 1229, writ denied, 96-693 (La. 4/26/96), 672 So.2d 910. Because this case involves cross-motions for summary judgment, our task is to determine whether either party has established that there are no genuine issues of material fact and whether either party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Duncan v. U.S.A.A. Ins. Co., 06-363 (La. 11/29/06), 950 So.2d 544.

The parties in this case have vehemently disputed the burden of proof, so much so that Cepolk has filed a motion to strike the Department's arguments on the burden of proof in the Department's reply brief filed in this court. We deny the motion to strike because it is a moot issue. Under our de novo review, we will apply the burden of proof analysis under summary judgment article, La.Code Civ.P. art. 966(C)(2),9 as explained in Gray v. American Nat'l Property & Cas. Co., 07-1670 (La. 2/26/08), 977 So.2d 839.10 We will first discuss agency.

Whether Cepolk Was A Purchasing Agent For The Government

The Department asserts that there is nothing in the record to suggest that Cepolk was a purchasing agent for the U.S. Government. We agree. In F. Miller & Sons, Inc., 838 So.2d 1269, the contractor claimed an agency relationship with the Port of Lake Charles, a tax exempt entity under La.R.S. 47:301(8)(c). The court discussed the Department's promulgation of amendments to the Louisiana Administrative Code to provide the criteria for a government contractor seeking to prove an agency relationship with an exempt government entity. Since 2002, Louisiana Administrative Code 61:I.4301 (emphasis added) provides in pertinent part:

Accordingly, La.Admin.Code 61:I.4301, promulgated in accordance with La.R.S. 47:301 and La.R.S. 47:1511, and amended by the Department of Revenue in February 2002, requires a signed agreement of agency and proof that title to the materials passed to governmental agency at the time of purchase.

The Louisiana Supreme Court in F. Miller & Sons, Inc. discussed the contractor as the ultimate consumer of construction materials and quoted extensively from Bill Roberts, Inc. Ultimately, the court found, "if Miller can prove that it was the Port's agent for purchasing supplies and equipment used on this public works Project, then it will be exempt from local sales tax under La.R.S. 47:301(8)." F. Miller & Sons, Inc., 838 So.2d at 1274. F. Miller & Sons, Inc. was able to prove that it was an agent and mandatory under La.Civ.Code art. 298911 and La.Admin.Code 61:I.4301 because its contract with the Port contained the following provisions:

F. Miller & Sons, Inc., 838 So.2d at 1270 (emphasis added).

Conversely, here, the contracts call for Cepolk to pay the vendors, pay federal, state and local taxes, and they require Cepolk to indemnify the Owner against Cepolk's nonpayment of the taxes.12 There was no provision proving an agency or mandatory relationship between Cepolk and the Army and no signed agreement of any kind meeting the requirements of La.Admin.Code Title 61:I.4301. Further, the only certificate in evidence had nothing to do with agency or mandate. It instead implicated Cepolk as a liable "dealer" under La.R.S. 47:304 and 47:301(4).

Annette Kotynia, the tax auditor who performed the audit of Cepolk through affidavit, states that she personally reviewed each and every purchase invoice provided to her by Cepolk for its own use in performing two contracts, one with the United States Army, and one as a subcontractor for Picerne Construction/FP, L.L.C. None of the invoices show the Army or the Government as a purchaser of the materials; all invoices show Cepolk as the purchaser. Ms. Kotynia's affidavit attached her schedules showing the value and nature of each invoice. Her schedules were broken down into monthly totals for each month during the audit period. Overall, the purchases total approximately $3,938,000.00 for the audit period.

Ms. Kotynia's affidavit states that the only exemption certificate that Cepolk provided to the vendors, to avoid paying the sales tax upon purchase, was Form LGST-9, entitled "Blanket Exemption Certificate for Purchases by Registered Wholesalers for Resale or Further Processing Under the Louisiana General Sales Tax Act." The Blanket Exemption Certificate (emphasis added) states that the purchaser certifies that the described types of materials and services "are to be used for resale or further processing for resale as tangible personal property by the undersigned registered wholesale dealer and are therefore exempt from the advance tax provisions of Revised Statute 47:306B," which has been repealed.13 The form does not provide an unqualified exemption as it holds the dealer fully liable if the sale is later determined to be subject to tax; nor does it concern in any way an exemption for Cepolk as a purchasing agent for the U.S. Government. In fact, the Blanket Exemption provides a "dealer" registration number indicating that Cepolk must show that it collects and remits the sales tax on the items it resells, pursuant to La.R.S. 47:304 and 47:301(4). Cepolk does not address or defend the Blanket Exemption Certificate, which is the only evidence of an exemption certificate in the record. Further, Cepolk provides no documentation to show that it collected and remitted any sales tax as a dealer on the materials at issue, even if Cepolk could be considered a dealer instead of a contractor.

Ms. Kotynia's affidavit attached a copy of the appropriate Department Form R-1020, entitled "Designation of Construction Contractor as Agent of a Government Entity and Exemption Certificate." It requires the legal name of the governmental entity designating the named contractor "as its agent for the purpose of making sales tax exempt purchases on behalf of the governmental body." It requires the name of the construction project for which the "purchases of component construction materials, taxable services and leases and rentals of tangible personal property" are exempt. It provides that materials purchased by the designated agent "shall immediately, upon delivery to the agent, become the property of the government entity." The government assumes "direct liability to the vendor for the payment of any property, services, leases, or rentals made by this designated agent." It also requires the signature of a Department of Revenue representative. As previously indicated in F. Miller & Sons, Inc. and La.Admin.Code 61:I.4301, while Form R-1020 is not required, a signed agreement containing the substance of the form is required.

In addition to the absence of a signed agency agreement exempting the tax, the contracts at issue show that Cepolk is a contractor under Bill Roberts, Inc. and its cited cases. Title to the materials did not pass to the government at the time of purchase as required by F. Miller & Sons, Inc. and La.Admin.Code 61:I.4301, or at any time prior to their incorporation into the finished product.

Where Cepolk and the Government failed to execute Form R-1020, or any manner of custom agreement including "all terms and conditions listed in the form prepared by the Department," and where all of the contracts are silent with regard to agency, we find that Cepolk did not have the status of Government agent or mandatory. Moreover, there is no evidence that title to the property purchased by Cepolk passed to the Government at the time of purchase. The agency status of a Government contractor is not assumed; it must be affirmatively established by contract. See Standard Oil Co. of Louisiana v. Fontenot, 198 La. 644, 4 So.2d 634 (1941). "The question of whether or not a contractor under the law is an independent one or an agent depends upon the intention of the parties as expressed in the contract." Id. at 643. We find no language in the subject contracts to suggest that there was any intention on the part of the Government to name Cepolk as its purchasing agent; nor has Cepolk pointed to such language.

In Bill Roberts, Inc., 539 So.2d at 1229, the contractor contended that it was acting as an agent for governmental agencies in purchasing materials and supplies pursuant to its contracts. The Louisiana Supreme Court articulated as follows:

We find under Gray, 977 So.2d 839, and under La.Code Civ.P. art. 966(C)(2), that once the Department factually pointed out that Cepolk could not prove its defense of agency, the burden shifted to Cepolk to provide factual support of its agency relationship, which Cepolk failed to do. Accordingly, the Department is entitled to summary judgment on the issue of agency.

Whether The Purchases Were Made For Future Sale To The Government Before They Were Incorporated Into The Final Product

Cepolk asserts that the nature of the contract determines the identity of the ultimate consumer, and that the Government is the ultimate consumer, not Cepolk, because Cepolk resold the items to the Government. In particular, Cepolk argues that La.R.S. 47:301(10)(g) exempts it from taxation because the Army Contract transferred title in the items to the Government in their movable form before Cepolk incorporated them into its final product. We disagree. The contracts in evidence are construction contracts, not contracts for sale, and they show that title in the materials and equipment transferred to the Government after the items were installed and incorporated into the housing units.

The Army Contract states in Section C, paragraph 1.1:

The 1994 Army Contract had a term of twenty years, with the design and construction phases to be accomplished in the first thirty-nine months, followed by maintenance and repair. Cepolk argues that because the construction phase was over, the contract was no longer a "construction" contract, but became a contract for sale of the materials. In this contract and the other three contracts, the work and the materials are inextricable from each other, and there is no evidence that Cepolk was selling the uninstalled materials to the Army. Fulfillment of the contracts required the skill and labor of the contractors and subcontractors, and all contracts are contracts for the completion of "work" which includes labor and materials. Further, all four contracts provide that payments for completed work or completed portions of work signal the transfer of ownership of the work and materials to the Government.

In the Army Contract, "system" refers to the HVAC system, and "equipment" is included in all other items required to operate and maintain the system. The contract repeatedly provides that the Contractor has full ownership responsibilities for the system and equipment he furnishes and that title passes to the government "upon completion of the term." Page C-18 Paragraph 10.1 states: "The facilities, equipment, software, and all other items used by the contractor or that is [sic] required to operate and maintain the systems for installations which are provided, and installed under this contract shall become the property of the government at the end of the contract term at no additional cost to the government." If the Government terminates the contract, Cepolk must, at that time, "transfer title and deliver to the Government (1) the fabricated or unfabricated parts, work in progress, completed work, supplies, and other material produced or acquired for the work terminated." Pages I-103-104, paragraph 1.2(b)(6).

Master Subcontract I, dated July 15, 2005, provides under article 2, "Scope of Work," paragraph 2.1, that Picerne Construction will issue directives in the form of Work Orders to Cepolk, and Cepolk will furnish "all of the labor, materials, supervision, tools, storage, transportation, implements, equipment, fees, utilities, etc., to complete all of the work identified in each Work Order." Paragraph 4.2 provides for Cepolk to submit monthly payment applications on provided forms, to Picerne Construction for the work it has completed in the previous month, including labor, equipment and materials incorporated into the work. In paragraph 4.4, Cepolk is to be paid for the price of completed and approved work-in-place. Paragraph 4.4.1 provides that the risk of loss for stored materials remains with Cepolk until the materials are incorporated into the work. Pursuant to paragraph 4.25, the materials and work become the property of Picerne Construction or the Owner/Polk Communities, LLC once Cepolk is paid for the materials and work. Cepolk, however, retains sole responsibility for all materials and work until final acceptance, and Cepolk assumes the risk of loss for stored materials or equipment. Master Subcontract II essentially tracks the language of Master Subcontract I.

The Subcontract, dated January 1, 2006, is between Picerne Military Housing as Manager and Cepolk as Subcontractor. Paragraph 3 states that the "Work" that Cepolk contracted to perform "includes all labor, materials, equipment and services" necessary for performance. The contract provides in exhibit "A" for monthly payment applications to include waivers from suppliers and purchase orders to support the value of the work if requested by the Manager. All payments are based upon completed work. Once that is done, then title passes to the Manager or Owner.

Once the Department pointed out to the court that Cepolk could not prove that it sold the unincorporated movables to the Government, the burden shifted to Cepolk to provide factual support to clearly and affirmatively establish that it was entitled to the exemptions claimed. See Gray v. American Nat'l Property & Cas. Co., 977 So.2d 839; La.Code Civ.P. art. 966(C)(2); See also Bill Roberts, Inc., 539 So.2d 1226. Cepolk provided no documentation showing that it sold any or all of the items to the Government before their incorporation into the housing units. It provided no invoices showing sales to the Government at any time, even though the contracts attached numerous required forms to be used for a multitude of contingencies. There was no inventory documentation or other evidence that the audited items were actually delivered to the site. The only document purporting a sale to the Government was the affidavit of Cepolk's president, which was objected to by the Department and never entered into evidence by Cepolk at the hearing as required by La.Code Civ.P. art. 966(B)(2).

Accordingly, we find that the Department has met its burden of proving that Cepolk owed the tax and did not pay the tax, and that Cepolk has not met its burden of proving that it is entitled to any of the exemptions asserted.

V.

CONCLUSION

Based upon the foregoing, we find that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the Department is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. We reverse the grant of summary judgment to Cepolk and grant summary judgment to the Department of Revenue. Costs of this appeal are assessed to Cepolk Corporation.

REVERSED AND RENDERED.