Legal Opinion

Maxxim Medical, Inc. v. Tracy

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 29, 1999No. 1998-2252PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Per curiam

Maxxim contends that R.C. 5739.03(B) relieves it from establishing each customer’s use and therefore all its sales of TENS and NMES units were exempt. We disagree.

R.C. 5739.02 provides that an “excise tax is hereby levied on each retail sale made in this state,” and for the proper administration of R.C. Chapter 5739 “to prevent the evasion of the tax, it is presumed that all sales made in this state are subject to the tax until the contrary is established.” Thus, until proven exempt or excepted from taxation, all retail sales are taxable.

R.C. 5739.03(B) provides two opportunities for a vendor…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Hatchadorian v. LindleyOhio Supreme Court · 1986
  2. Federated Department Stores, Inc. v. LindleyOhio Supreme Court · 1983

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Global Knowledge Training, L.L.C. v. LevinOhio Supreme Court · 2010
  2. Accel, Inc. v. Testa (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2017
  3. Krehnbrink v. Testa (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2016
  4. Tetlak v. Village of BratenahlOhio Supreme Court · 2001
  5. Maxxim Med., Inc. v. TracyOhio Supreme Court · 1999

5 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