Case Title: Campus Bus Serv. v. Zaino

Citation: 2003-Ohio-1915

Docket Number: 20020914 and 20020915

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2003-04-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Campus Bus Serv. v. Zaino, 98 Ohio St.3d 463, 2003-Ohio-1915.] 
 
 
CAMPUS BUS SERVICE, APPELLANT, v. ZAINO, TAX COMMR., APPELLEE. (TWO 
CASES.) 
[Cite as Campus Bus Serv. v. Zaino, 98 Ohio St.3d.463, 2003-Ohio-1915.] 
Taxation — Motor vehicle fuel tax — Exemptions — Reimbursement of motor 
vehicle fuel tax used by buses owned by university serving university 
area and surrounding townships denied, when — R.C. 5735.142, 
construed and applied. 
(Nos. 2002-0914 and 2002-0915 — Submitted February 12, 2003 — Decided 
April 30, 2003.) 
APPEALS from the Board of Tax Appeals, Nos. 00-V-1031 and 00-V-1030. 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J. 
{¶1} 
The question presented by these cases is whether the buses being 
operated by Campus Bus Service (“CBS”) during late 1999 and early 2000 were 
operated “by or for” the city of Kent and therefore entitle CBS to a refund of 
motor fuel tax.  We find that CBS is not entitled to a refund. 
{¶2} 
These cases have been consolidated by the court for hearing and 
decision.  In both cases, CBS has filed a claim for a refund of motor vehicle fuel 
taxes.  The claim for refund in case No. 2002-0914 covers October 1, 1999, 
through December 31, 1999.  The claim in case No. 2002-0915 covers January 1, 
2000, through March 31, 2000. 
{¶3} 
CBS is a transportation service owned and operated by Kent State 
University (“KSU”).  CBS operates 20 buses at any one time on its scheduled 
routes.  The buses have seating capacities ranging from 29 to 47 persons. 
{¶4} 
Some of CBS’s scheduled routes serve only campus areas. Other 
routes, while starting on the campus, travel through Kent and into adjoining 
townships.  In addition to its scheduled routes, CBS provides campus and airport 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
shuttles and transportation for disabled students.1  During the school term, CBS 
also provides buses for students and commuters who travel to and from 
Cleveland.  Other CBS routes connect with the Akron Metro Regional Transit 
Authority and the Portage Area Regional Transit Authority. 
{¶5} 
Travel within the KSU campus area is free.  Travel off the campus 
is at no additional charge for KSU students, who pay a per-credit-hour 
transportation fee.  Nonstudents who use the buses in Kent or adjoining townships 
pay a fare. 
{¶6} 
CBS has no contract, understanding, or financial arrangement of 
any type with Kent.  CBS has no contract or financial arrangements with either 
the Portage Area Regional Transit Authority or the Akron Metro Regional Transit 
Authority.  About 86 percent of CBS’s expenses are covered by KSU student 
fees. 
{¶7} 
Both the Tax Commissioner and the Board of Tax Appeals denied 
CBS’s claims for reimbursement of motor vehicle fuel tax, finding that CBS’s 
buses did not meet the definition of “transit bus” set forth in R.C. 5735.01(Q). 
{¶8} 
This court considered the topic of reimbursement of motor vehicle 
fuel tax in Lakefront Lines, Inc. v. Tracy  (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 627, 629, 665 
N.E.2d 662, and held that a claim for reimbursement of motor vehicle fuel tax is 
to be treated as an exemption from taxation.  As an exemption from taxation, the 
statute granting the exemption must be strictly construed, and the person claiming 
the exemption must affirmatively establish his or her right thereto.  Natl. Tube Co. 
v. Glander (1952), 157 Ohio St. 407, 47 O.O. 313, 105 N.E.2d 648, paragraph 
two of the syllabus. 
{¶9} 
The statutory provision under which CBS seeks reimbursement of 
the motor vehicle fuel tax is R.C. 5735.142, which provides:  
                                          
 
1. 
The tax paid on motor fuel that supports these services is not at issue here. 
January Term, 2003 
3 
{¶10} “Any person who uses any motor fuel, on which the tax 
imposed by sections 5735.05, 5735.25, and 5735.29 of the Revised Code 
has been paid, for the purpose of operating a transit bus shall be 
reimbursed in the amount of the tax paid on motor fuel used by public 
transportation systems providing transit or paratransit service on a regular 
and continuing basis within the state.” 
{¶11} The term “transit bus” used in R.C. 5735.142  is defined in R.C. 
5735.01(Q), which provides: 
{¶12} “As used in this chapter: 
{¶13} “* * * 
{¶14} “(Q) ‘Transit bus’ means a motor vehicle having a seating 
capacity of more than ten persons which is operated for public transit or 
paratransit service on a regular and continuing basis within the state by or 
for a county [or] a municipal corporation * * *.”  (Emphasis added.) 
{¶15} Thus, for the purposes of this case, R.C. 5735.01(Q) sets forth 
three requirements that a motor vehicle must meet in order to be a “transit bus,” 
therefore entitling its owner to fuel tax reimbursement:   
{¶16} 1. Have “a seating capacity of more than ten persons.” 
{¶17} 2. Be “operated for public transit * * * on a regular and continuing 
basis within the state.” 
{¶18} 3.  Be operated “by or for * * * a municipal corporation * * *.”  
(Emphasis added.) 
{¶19} The controversy in this case centers on requirement three.  CBS 
contends that it meets this criterion because its buses are operated “for the benefit 
of” the city of Kent.  Citing dictionaries, CBS asserts that “for” in R.C. 
5735.01(Q) requires only the bestowing of a benefit upon Kent and does not 
require the bus service to be under the control of a municipality or provided 
pursuant to a contract. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶20} The Tax Commissioner contends that CBS is not properly defining 
“for” when asserting that the buses are operated “by or for” Kent. 
{¶21} The words “by” and “for” as used in R.C. 5735.01(Q) are not 
defined in the statute.  R.C. 1.42 provides, “Words and phrases shall be read in 
context and construed according to the rules of grammar and common usage.”  
Furthermore, “[t]o determine the common, everyday meaning of a word, we have 
consistently used dictionary definitions.”  State v. Wells (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 32, 
34, 740 N.E.2d 1097.  When we look at the dictionary definitions of the word 
“by,” the most appropriate in the context of R.C. 5735.01(Q) is “through the 
means or instrumentality of.”  Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 
(1993) 307.  Likewise, the first appropriate definition for the word “for” is “in 
behalf of.”  Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (1993) 886.  Thus, to 
be “transit buses” within the meaning of R.C. 5735.01(Q), CBS’s buses must be 
operated either “through the means or instrumentality” of a municipal corporation 
(Kent) or “in behalf of” a municipal corporation (Kent). 
{¶22} The facts in this case fail to support CBS’s contention that the 
buses were operated either “through the means or instrumentality of” Kent, or “in 
behalf of” that city.  The buses are operated “by” KSU, not Kent.  While the buses 
may have benefited some of Kent’s residents, there are no facts to show that Kent, 
as a corporate entity, had any involvement in the operation of the buses or that the 
buses were operated for its benefit.  Mere use of streets and bus stops located in 
the city is not evidence that the buses are being operated by or for it. 
{¶23} Therefore, we find the decisions of the BTA to be reasonable and 
lawful, and we affirm them. 
Decisions affirmed. 
 
Moyer, C.J., Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Bryant and O’Connor, JJ., 
concur. 
 
Thomas F. Bryant, J., of the Third Appellate District, sitting for Cook, J. 
January Term, 2003 
5 
__________________ 
 
Amer Cunningham Co., L.P.A., Andrew R. Duff and Thomas R. 
Houlihan, for appellants. 
 
Jim Petro, Attorney General, and Richard C. Farrin, Assistant Attorney 
General, for appellee. 
__________________