CCH Computax, Inc. v. Tracy
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
The decision of the BTA is affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Although this is a use tax assessment only and not a sales tax assessment, by reason of R.C. 5741.02(C)(2) tax liability is determinable under sales tax statutes.
As to the first issue, set forth supra, the BTA decision is neither unreasonable nor unlawful and it is affirmed. The relevant statutes, R.C. 5739.01(B)(3)(e) and 5739.0KY), in their several iterations and as pertinent, defined automatic data processing and computer services (“ADP services”), taxed ADP services, and granted exemption from taxation in certain instances.
R.…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- SFZ Transportation, Inc. v. LimbachOhio Supreme Court · 1993
- ComTech Systems, Inc. v. LimbachOhio Supreme Court · 1991
- Emery Industries, Inc. v. LimbachOhio Supreme Court · 1989
- M.S. Osher, M.D. & R.S. Kerstine, M.D., Inc. v. LimbachOhio Supreme Court · 1992
3Cited by8 opinions
- Hyatt Corp. v. LimbachOhio Supreme Court · 1994
- Bellemar Parts Industries, Inc. v. TracyOhio Supreme Court · 2000
- MIB, Inc. v. TracyOhio Supreme Court · 1998
- Corporate Staffing Resources, Inc. v. ZainoOhio Supreme Court · 2002
- Bellemar Parts Industries, Inc. v. TracyOhio Supreme Court · 2000
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.