ComTech Systems, Inc. v. Limbach
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
We hold that (1) Com-Tech’s transactions were taxable under R.C. 5739.01 and 5739.02, (2) Am. Sub. H.B. No. 291 is constitutional, (3) ComTech satisfactorily raised the constitutional questions, and (4) Sub. S.B. No. 112 does not apply retroactively. Consequently, we affirm the BTA’s decision.
*97I. Introduction
Effective July 1,1983, the General Assembly enacted Am. Sub. H.B. No. 291, 140 Ohio Laws, Part II, 2872, which, inter alia, levied a sales tax on automatic data processing and computer services. R.C. 5739.01(B)(3)(e), as enacted by this bill, stated:
“(B) ‘Sale’ and ‘selling’ include***:
"*…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- State ex rel. Attorney-General v. CovingtonOhio Supreme Court · 1876
- Hoover v. Board of County CommissionersOhio Supreme Court · 1985
- State ex rel. Dix v. CelesteOhio Supreme Court · 1984
- Cleveland Gear Co. v. LimbachOhio Supreme Court · 1988
- Billington v. CotnerOhio Supreme Court · 1971
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by27 opinions
- State ex rel. Ohio Civ. Serv. Emps. Assn. v. State (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2016
- State ex rel. Ohio AFL-CIO v. VoinovichOhio Supreme Court · 1994
- State ex rel. Hinkle v. Franklin County Board of ElectionsOhio Supreme Court · 1991
- City of Riverside v. StateOhio Court of Appeals · 2010
- Global Knowledge Training, L.L.C. v. LevinOhio Supreme Court · 2010
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.