Andrew Jergens Co. v. Wilkins

{¶ 26} Respectfully, I dissent.

*400{¶ 27} While the majority carefully details the viewpoints expressed by the parties and correctly notes that the Tax Commissioner relies upon our decision in Community Mut. Ins. Co. v. Tracy (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 371, 653 N.E.2d 220, and that the taxpayer, the Andrew Jergens Company, relies upon CompuServe v. Lindley (1987), 41 Ohio App.3d 260, 266, 535 N.E.2d 360, the majority does not address the distinction drawn in CompuServe by the appellate court, i.e., the difference between system software and applications software. In my view, the outcome of this case…