Legal Opinion

Amerestate, Inc. v. Tracy

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided May 24, 1995No. 94-1426PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Per curiam

Amerestate claims that its transactions with customers are nontaxable “personal service transactions” under R.C. 5739.01(B), with regard to its Pace real estate reports and other publications, and that the automatic data processing and computer service transactions involving PaceNet are nontaxable *223transactions under R.C. 5739.01(B) and former 5739.01(Y)(1), now renumbered (Y)(l)(a). The BTA rejected these claims.

Under former R.C. 5739.01(B), “sales” include:

ii * * *

“all of the following transactions for a consideration in any manner * * *:

tl * * *

“(3) All transactions by which:

« * sic *

“(e)…

2Cited by8 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Clayburgh v. American West Community Promotions, Inc.North Dakota Supreme Court · 2002
  2. Marc Glassman, Inc. v. LevinOhio Supreme Court · 2008
  3. MIB, Inc. v. TracyOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  4. Cincinnati Fed. S. & L. Co. v. McClain (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2022
  5. Amerestate, Inc. v. TracyOhio Supreme Court · 1995

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API