Legal Opinion

MIB, Inc. v. Tracy

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided September 23, 1998No. 97-1283PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Per curiam

Appellant first contends that the members’ requests for information are not taxable under former R.C. 5739.01(B)(3)(e) because the members do not have direct access to the computer where the information is stored. The essence of MIB’s contention is that because the members do not have direct control of the main computer where information is stored, the members do not receive access to its computer equipment. We disagree.

Although the tax at issue is the use tax, R.C. 5741.02(C)(2) excepts from the application of the use tax the acquisition of tangible personal property and services “which, if…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. ComTech Systems, Inc. v. LimbachOhio Supreme Court · 1991
  2. Quotron Systems, Inc. v. LimbachOhio Supreme Court · 1992
  3. Avco Broadcasting Corp. v. LindleyOhio Supreme Court · 1978
  4. Credit Bureau of Miami County, Inc. v. CollinsOhio Supreme Court · 1977
  5. Amerestate, Inc. v. TracyOhio Supreme Court · 1995

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Marc Glassman, Inc. v. LevinOhio Supreme Court · 2008
  2. Cincinnati Fed. S. & L. Co. v. McClain (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2022
  3. Karvo Paving Co. v. TestaOhio Court of Appeals · 2019
  4. MIB, Inc. v. TracyOhio Supreme Court · 1998

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

Powered by the Exa API