Case Title: Smith v. Tracy

Citation: 1997-Ohio-37

Docket Number: 19970588

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1997-12-31T00:00:00Z

Document:
SMITH, D.B.A. SMITH’S C. B. SERVICE, APPELLANT, v. TRACY, TAX COMMR., 
APPELLEE. 
[Cite as Smith v. Tracy (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 541.] 
Taxation — Sales tax — R.C. 5739.12 — Dispute whether vendor timely filed 
August 1995 sales tax return and made payment — Board of Tax Appeals’ 
decision reversed and remanded, when. 
(No. 97-588 — Submitted September 30, 1997 — Decided December 31, 1997.) 
APPEAL from the Board of Tax Appeals, No. 96-T-566. 
 
Willie Smith, d.b.a. Smith’s C. B. Service, appellant, holds a sales tax 
vendor’s license.  Under this license, he must file monthly sales tax returns and 
remit collected sales taxes to the State Treasurer.  R.C. 5739.12.  Smith 
participated in the District Office Direct Deposit Program (“DODD”), in which the 
Treasurer has deputized the Tax Commissioner, appellee, to receive tax returns 
and payments at the commissioner’s district offices. 
 
The commissioner found that the return for August 1995 was filed late and 
that he did not receive the August payment.  He also concluded that Smith had 
filed the September 1995 return and payment late.  Consequently, the 
commissioner assessed Smith for the August payment and late filing charges and 
penalties for both returns. 
 
In his brief and at oral argument, the commissioner concedes that Smith had 
timely filed the September return and timely remitted payment.  The commissioner 
consents to the court’s so holding.  However, the August return and payment still 
remain at issue. 
 
Smith appealed the commissioner’s order to the Board of Tax Appeals 
(“BTA”).  At the BTA, he testified that he had delivered the August return and 
payment to the Youngstown district office and that the commissioner had 
 
2
mishandled it.  He provided a canceled check for the September payment but 
testified that his bank could not locate the check for payment of the August return. 
 
The BTA ruled that Smith, under R.C. 5739.12, needed to file the return and 
make the payment to the State Treasurer.  Since Smith, according to the BTA, had 
not filed either of the returns with the Treasurer, he had not filed the returns or 
made the payments timely.  The BTA made no finding on if or when Smith had 
filed the August return with the commissioner’s district office.  Consequently, the 
BTA affirmed the commissioner’s order as to both returns. 
 
This cause is now before this court upon an appeal as a matter of right. 
__________________ 
 
Willie Smith, pro se. 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Richard C. Farrin, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  Smith asks this court to resolve his dilemma.  According to 
Smith, the commissioner requires him to file returns and make payments at the 
commissioner’s district office.  The BTA, to the contrary, tells him that he has not 
filed the returns timely unless he files them with the Treasurer.  Smith concedes 
that he owes tax for August 1995, but claims that he has paid this amount and that 
the commissioner should credit his account and vacate the penalty and late-filing 
charges. 
 
The commissioner acknowledges that he operates the DODD program and 
that Smith participated in it.  He also declares that the BTA incorrectly decided 
this case on the basis that Smith needed to file a return with and make payments to 
the Treasurer.  Finally, the commissioner notes that he had not alerted the BTA 
 
3
about DODD.  Nevertheless, he claims that Smith has not established the filing of 
the August return or payment of the August remittance. 
 
Under DODD, the Treasurer has deputized the commissioner to receive 
returns and payments for sales taxes at the commissioner’s district offices.  The 
Treasurer receives the returns and payments when the commissioner’s district 
office receives them.   Smith participated in this program, filing returns and 
making payments at the district office.  Thus, as the commissioner concedes, if 
Smith timely filed his August 1995 return and remitted the tax at the 
commissioner’s district office, he satisfied the timely filing requirements of R.C. 
5739.12. 
 
Because the BTA ruled that only a filing with the Treasurer satisfied the 
timely filing requirements of R.C. 5739.12, it made no factual finding as to the 
filing of the August return or the remitting of the collected sales tax at the district 
office.  Making such findings is the BTA’s province, not ours.  See Youngstown 
Sheet & Tube Co. v. Mahoning Cty. Bd. of Revision (1981), 66 Ohio St.2d 398, 20 
O.O.3d 349, 422 N.E.2d 846.  
 
Accordingly, we reverse the BTA’s decision as to the August 1995 return 
and payment and remand this matter to the BTA for it to decide whether Smith 
timely filed the August 1995 return and payment at the district office.  We also 
reverse the BTA’s decision as to the September return and payment, and vacate the 
late-filing charge and penalty for the September return, in accordance with the 
commissioner’s concession. 
Decision reversed  
and cause remanded. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.