Case Title: United Transp. Union Ins. Assn. v. Tracy

Citation: 1998-Ohio-233

Docket Number: 19971190

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1998-07-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION INSURANCE ASSOCIATION, APPELLANT, v. TRACY, 
TAX COMMR., APPELLEE. 
[Cite as United Transp. Union Ins. Assn. v. Tracy (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Taxation — Fraternal benefit societies — Use tax on purchases of office 
materials, equipment, and supplies is not a tax on the funds of a fraternal 
benefit society — R.C. 3921.24, construed. 
The use tax is not a tax on the funds of a fraternal benefit society.  (R.C. 3921.24, 
construed.) 
(No. 97-1190 – Submitted April 21, 1998 – Decided July 8, 1998.) 
APPEAL from the Board of Tax Appeals, No. 95-J-417. 
 
Appellant, United Transportation Union Insurance Association (“United”), 
is a fraternal benefit society organized and operating pursuant to R.C. Chapter 
3921.  United provides insurance and annuity benefits to its members and their 
families.  At issue in this appeal are taxes assessed by the tax commissioner on 
purchases of office materials, equipment, and supplies made by United from 
January 1, 1990 to June 30, 1993. 
 
Beginning in July 1993, an audit of United’s purchases was conducted by an 
agent of the appellee, Tax Commissioner.  An assessment for use tax plus interest 
and a penalty was issued to United.  Subsequently, United filed a petition for 
reassessment.  The commissioner affirmed the use tax assessment, including 
interest, and conditionally remitted a portion of the penalty assessed against 
United. 
 
Upon appeal, the Board of Tax Appeals (“BTA”) affirmed the 
commissioner’s orders.  The BTA concluded that former R.C. 3921.40 (now R.C. 
3921.24)1 did not provide United with an exemption from payment of the use tax 
assessment. 
 
2
 
This matter is now before the court upon an appeal as a matter of right. 
__________________ 
 
Ball, Noga & Tanoury and Ronald B. Noga; and Clinton J. Miller III, for 
appellant. 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Robert C. Maier, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee. 
__________________ 
 
DOUGLAS, J.  A “fraternal benefit society” is defined in R.C. 3921.02 as 
“[a]ny incorporated society, order, or supreme lodge, without capital stock, 
including one exempted under division (A)(2) of section 3921.37 of the Revised 
Code whether incorporated or not, conducted solely for the benefit of its members 
and their beneficiaries and not for profit, operated on a lodge system with 
ritualistic form of work, having a representative form of government, and 
providing benefits in accordance with this chapter.”  A fraternal benefit society 
may “create, maintain, and operate charitable, benevolent, or educational 
institutions for the benefit of its members and their families.”  R.C. 3921.12.  See, 
also, R.C. 3921.05.2  To that end, a fraternal benefit society may enter into 
contractual obligations to provide, among other benefits, death, endowment, 
annuity, and life insurance payments to its members and their dependents.  R.C. 
3921.16. 
 
R.C. 3921.24 provides an exemption from certain taxes for fraternal benefit 
societies.  R.C. 3921.24 states: 
 
“Every fraternal benefit society organized or licensed under this chapter is 
hereby declared to be a charitable and benevolent institution, and all of its funds 
are exempt from all state, county, district, municipal, and school taxes other than 
franchise taxes and taxes on real estate.”  (Emphasis added.) 
 
3
 
United contends that R.C. 3921.24 (former R.C. 3921.40)3 exempts fraternal 
benefit societies like itself from assessment of the state use tax.  Specifically, 
United argues that the General Assembly intended to provide fraternal benefit 
societies with an exemption from “all” taxes except franchise taxes and taxes on 
real estate.  Therefore, United asserts that the BTA erred in affirming the use tax 
assessment imposed by the commissioner.  For the reasons that follow, we 
disagree with United. 
 
It is well established that “[s]tatutes relating to the exemption or exception 
from sales or use taxes are to be strictly construed, and one claiming such 
exemption or exception must affirmatively show his right thereto.”  Celina Mut. 
Ins. Co. v. Bowers (1965), 5 Ohio St.2d 12, 34 O.O.2d 7, 213 N.E.2d 175, 
paragraph one of the syllabus.  See, also, Philips Industries, Inc. v. Limbach 
(1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 100, 101, 524 N.E.2d 161, 161-162.  Further, “[o]ur duty is 
limited to a determination of whether the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals 
was unreasonable or unlawful.”  Id. 
 
In arguing that it is exempt from paying the use tax, United has set forth a 
selective reading of R.C. 3921.24.  By its very terms, the statute does not exempt 
United from paying use taxes.  Instead, R.C. 3921.24 specifically states that 
“funds” of a fraternal benefit society are exempt from “all state, county, district, 
municipal, and school taxes other than franchise taxes and taxes on real estate.”  
United gives little, if any, significance to the term “funds,” which precedes the 
language “all state * * * taxes.” 
 
The term “funds” is not defined in R.C. Chapter 3921.  The BTA therefore 
looked to a definition of the term as it was defined in a former edition of Black’s 
Law Dictionary.  The BTA also analyzed how the term was used in former 
sections of R.C. Chapter 3921 and how it is currently being used.  The BTA then 
 
4
concluded, and we agree, that the term “funds” generally involves money or other 
liquid assets held by a fraternal benefit society to accomplish the society’s 
purposes.  Specifically, the BTA correctly observed that “the term ‘funds’ as used 
in [former] R.C. 3921.40 means and includes the fund or funds which are 
maintained and invested as prescribed by law to carry out the purposes of the 
society.  It is these funds and the investments of these funds which are intended to 
be exempt from taxation except for the levy of franchise tax upon the net worth of 
the society and levy of tax upon its real property.” 
 
United asserts that the BTA’s decision was premised on an improper 
“narrow” interpretation of the term “funds.”  United points to R.C. 3921.22(B), 
which provides that a fraternal benefit society can create and apply any “funds” 
necessary to carry out “any purpose” permitted by the laws of the society.  
Therefore, according to United, the purchases in question should be exempt from 
the use tax because it used “funds” to purchase the items. 
 
However, it is clear that R.C. 3921.24 exempts from taxation a fraternal 
benefit society’s funds, not transactions on which Ohio imposes a use tax.  The 
BTA correctly determined that the use tax levied by the commissioner was not 
upon the funds held by United.  Rather, the tax assessment was issued “upon the 
various items of office materials that were needed and utilized by the society in 
conducting its affairs.”  Thus, the use tax is not a tax on the funds of a fraternal 
benefit society. 
 
R.C. 5741.02(A) levies “an excise tax * * * on the storage, use, or other 
consumption in the state of tangible personal property or the benefit realized in 
this state of any service provided.”  R.C. 5741.04 requires the consumer to pay the 
tax to the vendor based on the purchase price.  In Gen. Motors Corp. v. Lindley 
(1981), 67 Ohio St.2d 331, 333, 21 O.O.3d 208, 210, 423 N.E.2d 479, 481, we 
 
5
stated: 
 
“The use tax levied under R.C. Chapter 5741 is an excise tax, not an ad 
valorem tax.  As such, it is imposed ‘neither on the ownership of property, nor is it 
with respect to such ownership.  It is not a tax “laid directly on persons or 
property.” * * * It is a tax assessed for some special privilege or immunity. * * *’  
(Citations omitted.)  Howell Air, Inc. v. Porterfield (1970), 22 Ohio St.2d 32, 34 
[51 O.O.2d 62, 63, 257 N.E.2d 742, 743].  The use tax, therefore, is not a tax laid 
upon the property, itself, but, rather, ‘is a tax upon the privilege of use of property 
* * *.’  Federal Paper Bd. Co. v. Kosydar (1974), 37 Ohio St.2d 28, at 32 [66 
O.O.2d 82, 85, 306 N.E.2d 416, 419].  Under the statutes in question, ‘ “use” 
means and includes the exercise of any right or power incidental to the ownership 
of the thing used.’  R.C. 5741.01(C).” (Emphasis sic.) 
 
Accordingly, the commissioner did not assess a tax on the funds of United.  
Rather, the commissioner properly assessed a tax on United’s exercise of its 
privilege to use the items it purchased, measured by the purchase price of the 
items.  The BTA correctly decided this issue. 
 
Finally, United argues that we should examine R.C. 3921.24 in light of R.C. 
5739.02(B)(12) to understand how the two statutes parallel each other in support 
of United’s position.  United does not claim exemption directly under R.C. 
5739.02(B)(12).  Instead, United asserts that this statute reveals the General 
Assembly’s intention to exempt charitable institutions and institutions with 
charitable purposes from sales and use taxes.  Again, we disagree. 
 
The BTA properly rejected United’s argument.  First, R.C. 3921.24 does not 
exempt fraternal benefit societies on the basis of their status as charitable and 
benevolent institutions.  Instead, R.C. 3921.24 simply designates them as such 
institutions and independently exempts their funds from various taxes.  Second, 
 
6
R.C. 5739.02(B)(12) exempts sales of tangible personal property or services to 
“nonprofit organizations operated exclusively for charitable purposes.”  (The 
exemption is made applicable to the use tax by R.C. 5741.02.)  The statute then 
defines charitable purposes, but the definition does not include the purposes of a 
fraternal benefit society.  Consequently, we find that R.C. 5739.02(B)(12) fails to 
support United’s claim. 
 
Thus, we hold that United is not entitled to an exemption from payment of 
the use tax with respect to the purchases in question.  The decision of the BTA 
was both reasonable and lawful.  Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the BTA. 
Decision affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and COOK, JJ., concur. 
 
PFEIFER and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., dissent. 
FOOTNOTES: 
1. 
Effective January 1, 1997, the General Assembly amended and reorganized 
R.C. Chapter 3921.  See Am.Sub.H.B. No. 468, 146 Ohio Laws, Part III, 5193, 
5198-5223.  Am.Sub.H.B. No. 468 was enacted after the audit period in question.  
Notwithstanding, many of the former sections of R.C. Chapter 3921 have been 
repealed and simply renumbered without substantive change.  Former R.C. 
3921.40 was repealed and recodified as R.C. 3921.24.  R.C. 3921.24 is 
substantively identical to former R.C. 3921.40.  Thus, where appropriate, we will 
refer to relevant current sections of R.C. Chapter 3921. 
2. 
R.C. 3921.05 provides that “[a] fraternal benefit society shall operate for the 
benefit of its members and their beneficiaries by providing any of the benefits set 
forth in section 3921.16 of the Revised Code, and by operating for social, 
intellectual, educational, charitable, benevolent, moral, fraternal, patriotic, or 
religious purposes for the benefit of its members and any other persons as 
 
7
determined by the society.” 
3. 
United’s actual arguments focus on former R.C. 3921.40.  United, however, 
agrees that Am.Sub.H.B. No. 468 (enacting current R.C. 3921.24) did not change 
“the substance” of former R.C. 3921.40. 
__________________ 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissenting.  Because I would find that a plain 
reading of former R.C. 3921.40 (now R.C. 3921.24) exempts fraternal benefit 
societies from sales and use taxes, I respectfully dissent. 
 
A fraternal benefit society operates for the social, intellectual, educational, 
charitable, benevolent, moral, fraternal, patriotic, or religious benefit of its 
members. R.C. 3921.05.  Because charitable organizations perform a valuable 
service to society that is to be encouraged, the General Assembly has expressly 
declared fraternal benefit societies to be charitable and benevolent institutions. 
R.C. 3921.24.  The General Assembly, recognizing the unique nature of fraternal 
benefit societies and the services they provide to members, has enacted laws 
providing tax exemptions for these organizations in R.C. 3921.24 and, by 
implication, in R.C. 5739.02(B)(12). 
 
R.C. 3921.24 (substantively the same as the statute at issue, former R.C. 
3921.40) states two basic concepts: 
 
“Every fraternal benefit society * * * is hereby declared to be a charitable 
and benevolent institution, and all of its funds are exempt from all * * * taxes 
other than franchise taxes and taxes on real estate.”  (Emphasis added.) 
 
First, the statute expressly exempts a fraternal benefit society from taxes 
(except franchise and real estate taxes) on “all of its funds.”  Although the statute 
does not define “funds,” the word is commonly understood to broadly signify 
monies and assets. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (3 
 
8
Ed.1992) 735, defines “funds” as “[a]vailable money.”  Black’s Law Dictionary (6 
Ed.1990) 673, states that “funds” includes “moneys and much more * * * and in 
broader meaning may include property of all kind.” 
 
There is no language in the statute that limits the meaning of “funds.”  Yet 
the BTA found it necessary to interpret the word.  The majority affirmed the 
BTA’s finding that the term “funds” is restricted to “the fund or funds which are 
maintained and invested as prescribed by law to carry out the purposes of the 
society.”  There is no reasonable or legal basis to narrowly define the word funds 
to limit the tax exemption that, I believe, the General Assembly conferred upon 
fraternal benefit societies.  It is a well-settled principle of statutory construction 
that words used in a statute are to be given their plain and ordinary meaning unless 
otherwise indicated.  Ohio Assn. of Pub. School Emp. v. Twin Valley Local School 
Dist. Bd. of Edn. (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 178, 181, 6 OBR 235, 237, 451 N.E.2d 
1211, 1213. 
 
However, even if we accept such a narrow interpretation, a logical 
progression in the analysis is that United Transportation Union Insurance 
Association (“United”) uses its “funds” to make necessary purchases to carry out 
the purposes of the society.  The funds are exempt from all taxes (except franchise 
and real estate taxes), and consequently, the use of the funds, including purchases 
made with the funds, should be likewise exempt from taxes.  The purchases 
become other property and part of the exempt funds just as real estate would if 
purchased. 
 
The majority labels the use tax as a “tax on United’s exercise of its privilege 
to use the items it purchased.”  Yet, no matter how the tax is described, the 
consequence of the BTA’s finding is that United’s funds, in this case, funds used 
to purchase necessary items for the operation of the fraternal benefit society, are 
 
9
being taxed.  This taxing policy serves only to discourage a fraternal benefit 
society from providing services and benefits to its members in order to avoid 
taxation on the use of the funds.  Because the exemption applies to all taxes, with 
the exception of franchise and real estate taxes, I believe this interpretation 
violates the express terms of former R.C. 3921.40 and the intent of the General 
Assembly. 
 
Second, the statute also states that the exemption applies to “all * * * taxes 
other than franchise taxes and taxes on real estate.”  There is no express exclusion 
for sales and use taxes.  I do not believe we should read additional exclusions into 
the statute.  Had the General Assembly intended also to exclude sales and use 
taxes, it could have done so.  The plain, ordinary meaning of the statute exempts 
fraternal benefit societies from all taxes other than those expressly excluded. 
 
In addition, R.C. 5739.02(B)(12) also supports United’s position that the 
General Assembly intended fraternal benefit societies to be exempt from sales and 
use taxes.  The BTA rejected United’s argument on the basis that the purposes of a 
fraternal benefit society are not included within the charitable purposes 
enumerated in the statute.  Although fraternal benefit societies are not specifically 
identified in R.C. 5739.02(B)(12), many of the functions they perform are so 
delineated.  But because the General Assembly has expressly designated fraternal 
benefit societies as charitable and benevolent institutions in R.C. 3921.40, no 
further inquiry need be made. 
 
I believe the language in the statute reflects the General Assembly’s intent 
to exempt fraternal benefit societies from all taxes (except franchise and real estate 
taxes), including sales and use taxes.  Therefore, I would reverse the decision of 
the BTA as being unreasonable and unlawful. 
 
PFEIFER, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.