Gallenstein v. Testa

{¶ 24} Because I believe that Gallenstein was required to register her 44-foot Sea Ray in Ohio and has not satisfied the requirements of transient use as set forth in R.C. 5741.02(C)(4), I dissent. I would hold that the BTA properly upheld the imposed use tax, and I would affirm the decision of the BTA.

*247{¶ 25} It is presumed that “every sale or use of tangible personal property in Ohio is * * * taxable.” Std. Oil Co. v. Peck, 163 Ohio St. 63, 65, 125 N.E.2d 342 (1955). As a result, statutes relating to the exemption or exception from sales or use taxes are to be strictly construed, and one…