Case Title: Crew 4 You, Inc. v. Wilkins

Citation: 2005-Ohio-2167

Docket Number: 20031960

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2005-05-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Crew 4 You, Inc. v. Wilkins, 105 Ohio St.3d 356, 2005-Ohio-2167.] 
 
 
CREW 4 YOU, INC., APPELLEE AND CROSS-APPELLANT, v. WILKINS, TAX 
COMMR., APPELLANT AND CROSS-APPELLEE. 
[Cite as Crew 4 You, Inc. v. Wilkins, 105 Ohio St.3d 356, 2005-Ohio-2167.] 
Taxation — Sales tax — R.C. 5739.01(B)(3)(k) and (JJ) — Employment service — 
“Crewing” company for live broadcasts is provider of employment service 
subject to sales tax — R.C. 5739.01(E) — Resale exception to sales tax — 
Exception does not apply to employment service when services are not 
resold in same form in which they are purchased. 
(No. 2003-1960 — Submitted March 1, 2005 — Decided May 18, 2005.) 
APPEAL and CROSS-APPEAL from the Board of Tax Appeals, No. 2002-V-958. 
____________________ 
 
O’DONNELL, J. 
{¶ 1} The principal issues presented in this appeal concern whether 
appellee and cross-appellant, Crew 4 You, Inc., sold taxable employment 
services, and, if so, whether any of those sales are exempt from the state sales tax 
under the “resale exception” for goods or services resold by the buyer to another 
purchaser. 
{¶ 2} Regarding the first issue, both appellant and cross-appellee, the 
Tax Commissioner, and the Board of Tax Appeals (“BTA”) found that Crew 4 
You did in fact sell taxable employment services.  Crew 4 You has filed a cross-
appeal on that question, but we affirm the decision of the BTA for the reasons 
explained below. 
{¶ 3} Regarding the second issue, the Tax Commissioner found that the 
resale exception did not apply, but the BTA reached the opposite conclusion, 
finding that the resale exception did apply, and it therefore determined that Crew 
4 You did not owe sales tax on its resale of employment services.  The Tax 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
Commissioner has appealed that issue to our court, and for the reasons explained 
below, we reverse the decision of the BTA because Crew 4 You has not shown 
that the employment services were in fact resold by the buyer.  The record reveals 
rather that the buyer did pass on the benefit of the employment services to others, 
but those employment services were not resold “in the form in which [they had 
been] received” by the buyer of them, as required by R.C. 5739.01(E), the resale-
exception statute. 
Facts and Procedural History 
{¶ 4} Crew 4 You, Inc., of Spencer Township, Ohio, located in Medina 
County, is a company that assists in producing live television broadcasts of 
sporting events.  Such broadcasts typically involve the coordinated efforts of three 
kinds of companies at the site of the sporting event:  a broadcasting entity, a 
“trucking company,” and a “crewing company.”  Crew 4 You falls into the last 
category. 
{¶ 5} These three kinds of companies work together in the following 
manner.  The broadcasting entity owns the right to broadcast games for various 
teams.  An example of a broadcasting entity is WGN in Chicago, which televises 
Chicago Cubs baseball games.  When a sports team like the Cubs travels to 
another city for a game, however, the broadcasting entity sends its on-air 
announcer(s), a producer, and a director to the out-of-town venue.  A “trucking 
company” then supplies equipment – cameras, electrical cables, microphones, etc. 
– to help create the live broadcast.  The trucking company, in turn, hires personnel 
– a crew – to operate the equipment.  Crew 4 You is a crewing company that 
supplies qualified technicians to trucking companies and broadcasting entities 
involved in the production of live sports broadcasts. 
{¶ 6} The Tax Commissioner conducted an audit of the sales reported by 
Crew 4 You for the period of September 1, 1996, through December 31, 1999, 
and concluded that the company owed more than $156,000 for unpaid sales taxes, 
January Term, 2005 
3 
penalties, and interest charges.  Crew 4 You objected to that assessment, and a 
hearing was held before the Tax Commissioner in March 2001. 
{¶ 7} Following that hearing, the Tax Commissioner issued a written 
decision in which he rejected the objections raised by Crew 4 You.  The Tax 
Commissioner concluded that the company owed sales taxes on employment 
services it had provided to trucking companies and to broadcasting entities during 
the audit period and found that the resale exception to the sales tax did not apply 
to Crew 4 You because the services provided by the company were not resold by 
the purchasers of those services.  The Tax Commissioner, however, made other 
adjustments not relevant to this appeal, which reduced the company’s tax liability 
to $112,021.11. 
{¶ 8} Crew 4 You then appealed to the BTA, which held a hearing on the 
matter in March 2003.  Crew 4 You presented three witnesses, and both parties 
offered exhibits.  The BTA sided with the Tax Commissioner on the question of 
whether Crew 4 You had provided taxable employment services to its customers 
but agreed with Crew 4 You that some of the company’s services were not taxable 
under the R.C. 5739.01(E)(1) resale exception for employment services that are 
resold by the purchaser. 
{¶ 9} The Tax Commissioner has appealed from the latter portion of the 
BTA’s decision, and Crew 4 You has cross-appealed from the former. 
Standard of Review 
{¶ 10} In reviewing a decision of the BTA, this court determines whether 
it is “reasonable and lawful.”  Columbus City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Zaino 
(2001), 90 Ohio St.3d 496, 498, 739 N.E.2d 783.  The court “will not hesitate to 
reverse a BTA decision that is based on an incorrect legal conclusion.”  Gahanna-
Jefferson Local School Dist Bd. of Edn. v. Zaino (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 231, 232, 
754 N.E.2d 789.  But “[t]he BTA is responsible for determining factual issues 
and, if the record contains reliable and probative support for these BTA 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
determinations,” this court will affirm them.  Am. Natl. Can Co. v. Tracy (1995), 
72 Ohio St.3d 150, 152, 648 N.E.2d 483. 
{¶ 11} As for the burden of proof, it rests on the taxpayer “to show the 
manner and extent of the error in the Tax Commissioner’s final determination.”  
Standards Testing Laboratories, Inc. v. Zaino, 100 Ohio St.3d 240, 2003-Ohio-
5804, 797 N.E.2d 1278, ¶ 30.  The Tax Commissioner’s findings “are 
presumptively valid, absent a demonstration that those findings are clearly 
unreasonable or unlawful.”  Nusseibeh v. Zaino, 98 Ohio St.3d 292, 2003-Ohio-
855, 784 N.E.2d 93, ¶ 10.  Any claimed exemption from taxation must be strictly 
construed, and the taxpayer must affirmatively establish his or her right to the 
exemption.  Campus Bus Serv. v. Zaino, 98 Ohio St.3d 463, 2003-Ohio-1915, 786 
N.E.2d 889, ¶ 8. 
The Tax on Retail Sales 
{¶ 12} Under R.C. 5739.02, a tax is levied on “each retail sale made in 
this state.”  According to R.C. 5739.02(C), “it is presumed that all sales made in 
this state are subject” to that tax. 
{¶ 13} Ohio has imposed a sales tax on employment services since 1993.  
Am.Sub.H.B. No. 904, 144 Ohio Laws, Part IV, 6598, 6689, 6797 (Section 131).  
The terms “sale” and “selling” are defined in R.C. 5739.01(B) to include all 
transactions in which consideration has been or is to be exchanged and in which 
“[e]mployment service is or is to be provided.”  R.C. 5739.01(B)(3)(k).  The term 
“employment service” is in turn defined in R.C. 5739.01(JJ) as follows: 
{¶ 14} “ ‘Employment service’ means providing or supplying personnel, 
on a temporary or long-term basis, to perform work or labor under the supervision 
or control of another, when the personnel so supplied receive their wages, salary, 
or other compensation from the provider of the service.  ‘Employment service’ 
does not include:   
January Term, 2005 
5 
{¶ 15} “(1) Acting as a contractor or subcontractor, where the personnel 
performing the work are not under the direct control of the purchaser.” 
The Cross-Appeal Filed by Crew 4 You 
{¶ 16} The Tax Commissioner and the BTA both found that Crew 4 You 
is in the business of providing an “employment service,” and that finding is 
supported by facts in the record before us. 
{¶ 17} We have explained that services provided by an individual or other 
taxable entity must meet three requirements to qualify as “employment services” 
for purposes of the sales tax statutes in Ohio:  (1) the service provider “must 
provide or supply personnel on a temporary or long-term basis, (2) the personnel 
must perform work or labor under the supervision or control of another, and (3) 
the personnel must receive their wages, salary, or other compensation from the 
provider of the service.”  Moore Personnel Services, Inc. v. Zaino, 98 Ohio St.3d 
337, 2003-Ohio-1089, 784 N.E.2d 1178, ¶ 14. 
{¶ 18} All of those criteria – which flow from the text of R.C. 5739.01(JJ) 
– are satisfied in this case. 
{¶ 19} Regarding the first, the president of Crew 4 You testified before 
the BTA that her company “locate[s] personnel for sports television events.”  
Other testimony before the BTA established that trucking companies supply 
broadcasting entities with cameras and other video and audio equipment for 
sporting-event broadcasts, and then crewing companies like Crew 4 You locate 
the necessary personnel to operate that equipment.  As the president of Crew 4 
You explained, “we pass on the final crew list to the trucking company” once 
Crew 4 You has lined up the personnel needed for a particular broadcast or series 
of broadcasts. 
{¶ 20} Crew 4 You, then, is in the business of “providing or supplying 
personnel, on a temporary or long-term basis,” R.C. 5739.01(JJ), and the BTA 
correctly determined that the first part of the test in Moore had been met. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
{¶ 21} Regarding the second, as determined by the BTA, the personnel 
supplied by Crew 4 You “perform work or labor under the supervision or control 
of another.”  Moore, 98 Ohio St.3d 337, 2003-Ohio-1089, 784 N.E.2d 1178, ¶ 14.  
The BTA reviewed the record on this point and noted several key statements in 
the testimony that supported its conclusion.  The president of a trucking company 
that routinely deals with Crew 4 You testified that the producer and director from 
the broadcasting entity that hires the trucking company “will actually say what 
time they want the crew call and when the crew will break for lunch.  They really 
control everything at the location where the cameras are placed.”  That same 
trucking company official testified before the BTA that the director or the 
producer from the broadcasting entity decides what needs to be done at the 
sporting events, and he explained that the director “really calls every shot” during 
the broadcasts. 
{¶ 22} The foregoing, along with substantial documentary evidence, 
supports the BTA’s conclusion that broadcasting entities supervise or control the 
personnel supplied by crewing companies like Crew 4 You at televised sporting 
events.  Written agreements between broadcasting entities and trucking 
companies that did business with Crew 4 You during the Tax Commissioner’s 
audit period provide detailed specifications as to the equipment needed at sporting 
events, the placement of cameras and microphones, and the schedule of 
preproduction meetings, rehearsals, and game start times.  The broadcasting entity 
determines the equipment it needs, the trucking company provides that 
equipment, and the crewing company supplies personnel to operate the 
equipment.  The broadcasting entity then deploys that equipment and those 
persons when and where they are needed at the sporting event. 
{¶ 23} To be sure, a provider of personnel does not perform a taxable 
“employment service” when that provider acts “as a contractor or subcontractor, 
where the personnel performing the work are not under the direct control of the 
January Term, 2005 
7 
purchaser.”  R.C. 5739.01(JJ)(1).  The BTA found, however, that this exception in 
the sales tax statute did not apply to Crew 4 You, because its personnel work 
under the control of the broadcasting entity’s producer and director, rather than 
under the control of Crew 4 You itself.  In essence, the BTA determined that 
Crew 4 You is not a contractor or subcontractor, and that finding is supported by 
the record. 
{¶ 24} Broadcasting entities and trucking companies contact crewing 
companies seeking personnel.  Crew 4 You identifies skilled personnel and 
supplies a list of names to the trucking company and to the broadcasting entity.  
The crew reports to the site of the sporting event and performs the technical work 
that the broadcasting entity’s producer and director need from them to create the 
live broadcast in the way that the broadcasting entity desires.  Testimony before 
the BTA established this evidence in the record before us. 
{¶ 25} Crew 4 You does not act as a contractor or subcontractor in its 
dealings with trucking companies and broadcasting entities.  Contractors or 
subcontractors are hired to reach a final result and are generally free to use their 
own methods in achieving that result.  Evidence presented to the BTA showed 
that Crew 4 You is not hired to broadcast sporting events or to achieve any other 
final result.  It does not dictate what happens during live television broadcasts.  
Instead, Crew 4 You is in the business of locating skilled technicians and others 
who are capable of operating technical equipment, and it supplies these personnel 
to the producers and directors to set up and operate broadcasting equipment on 
selected days.  It is the broadcasting entity – not Crew 4 You – that determines 
how many crew members are needed, where they will work at the event, which 
camera shots will be used, and, ultimately, how the broadcast will appear to the 
viewing public. 
{¶ 26} If a broadcasting entity or a trucking company hired audio 
technicians, video operators, or other similar personnel without using a crewing 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
company like Crew 4 You, then no taxable “employment service” as defined in 
R.C. 5739.01(JJ) would be involved.  And although the R.C. 5739.01(JJ)(1) 
contractor/subcontractor exception to the employment service sales tax might 
apply if Crew 4 You had substantial discretion in actually producing the 
broadcast, all the evidence presented to the BTA indicates that Crew 4 You 
simply provides to broadcasting entities and trucking companies the skilled 
personnel at agreed-upon rates for particular days. 
{¶ 27} When a broadcasting entity or a trucking company arranges with a 
personnel provider like a crewing company to ensure that a trained worker will 
report to a particular sporting event and do what the broadcasting entity directs 
there, that crewing company is providing a taxable “employment service” as that 
term is defined in R.C. 5739.01(JJ).  The BTA’s factual findings on this issue are 
supported by the record, and the legal conclusion drawn by the BTA from those 
findings is reasonable and consistent with the relevant statute.  The BTA correctly 
determined that “the personnel [from Crew 4 You] must perform work or labor 
under the supervision or control of another,” Moore, 98 Ohio St.3d 337, 2003-
Ohio-1089, 784 N.E.2d 1178, at ¶ 14, and also properly rejected the argument that 
Crew 4 You is a contractor or subcontractor. 
{¶ 28} Regarding the third part of the Moore test for determining whether 
taxable employment services have been provided—“the personnel must receive 
their wages, salary, or other compensation from the provider of the service”— the 
BTA’s factual findings are undisputed.  The Moore test’s third part mimics the 
text of R.C. 5739.01(JJ), and the BTA properly concluded that this criterion was 
satisfied in this case. 
{¶ 29} The Tax Commissioner’s final determination explains how the 
workers provided by Crew 4 You to broadcasting entities and trucking companies 
are paid: 
January Term, 2005 
9 
{¶ 30} “Payment is made after the game is broadcast.  Crew 4 You 
invoices the mobile production company [the trucking company] for each 
technician’s time based upon the industry’s standard hourly rates in addition to a 
‘crewing fee.’  The mobile production companies pay Crew 4 You.  Crew 4 You 
pays the technicians for their work.” 
{¶ 31} Crew 4 You does not dispute this finding but argues that the 
money it pays to the technicians – the crew members – for the work that they 
perform for broadcasting entities is not “wages, salary, or other compensation.”  
R.C. 5739.01(JJ).  That argument is not tenable.  The money paid to crew 
members by Crew 4 You is designed to compensate them for their services, and 
payment of that money by Crew 4 You falls squarely within the terms of R.C. 
5739.01(JJ). 
{¶ 32} For the reasons explained above, the BTA properly concluded that 
Crew 4 You provided an “employment service” as that term is defined in R.C. 
5739.01(JJ).  Evidence in the record supports the BTA’s view that (1) Crew 4 
You provided or supplied personnel, (2) the personnel supplied by Crew 4 You 
performed work under the supervision or control of another, (3) Crew 4 You did 
not act as a contractor or subcontractor, and (4) the personnel supplied by Crew 4 
You received their wages, salary, or other compensation from Crew 4 You itself.  
Thus, the BTA’s conclusion that Crew 4 You provided taxable employment 
services was reasonable and lawful.  We therefore affirm the BTA’s decision on 
the issues raised in the cross-appeal filed by Crew 4 You. 
The Appeal Filed by the Tax Commissioner 
{¶ 33} The Tax Commissioner concluded that the so-called resale 
exception in R.C. 5739.01(E) did not apply to the transactions between Crew 4 
You and the trucking companies, and the commissioner therefore determined that 
Crew 4 You owed sales tax on its sales of employment services.  The BTA, 
however, decided that the company did not owe any sales tax on those sales in 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
10 
which the benefit of the company’s personnel was passed on or resold by the 
trucking companies to the broadcasting entities.  The Tax Commissioner has 
appealed from that decision, and his argument has merit. 
{¶ 34} R.C. 5739.01(E) excludes from the definition of “[r]etail sale” – 
and therefore excludes from the R.C. 5739.02 sales tax on retail sales – any sale 
“in which the purpose of the consumer is to resell the thing transferred or benefit 
of the service provided, by a person engaging in business, in the form in which 
the same is, or is to be, received by the person.”  In other words, when the 
purchaser’s intent in buying a good or service is to resell it to yet another 
purchaser without changing the good or service in any way, then the original 
purchase is not considered a “retail sale” and is therefore not subject to the sales 
tax on retail sales. 
{¶ 35} The BTA concluded that the “benefit of Crew 4 You’s personnel 
services (a flexible, temporary workforce) is passed on through the trucking 
company to the broadcast entity.”  The resale exception therefore applies to any 
employment services that trucking companies bought from Crew 4 You and 
resold to broadcasting entities, the BTA explained. 
{¶ 36} As the Tax Commissioner stated in his final determination, 
however, the trucking companies “do not resell employment services.”  The 
trucking companies pay crewing companies like Crew 4 You to supply personnel, 
and then the trucking companies use those personnel to help the broadcasting 
entities produce a live broadcast of a sporting event.  The personnel services are 
not resold in the same form in which they are purchased.  The Tax Commissioner 
explained, “The benefit to the broadcast entities is not the labor of the technicians; 
it is the end product of that labor – staffed equipment ready for use in 
broadcasting a sporting event.”  In short, the good or service that the trucking 
companies received from Crew 4 You was different from the good or service that 
the broadcasting entities received from the trucking companies. 
January Term, 2005 
11 
{¶ 37} The parties do not dispute the fact that the sale of employment 
services is taxable in Ohio.  Because, as we have explained above, Crew 4 You 
provided an “employment service” as that term is defined in R.C. 5739.01(JJ), the 
critical question is whether Crew 4 You owes the sales tax or whether instead the 
trucking companies owe the sales tax on the sale of the employment services that 
Crew 4 You provided.  Under the R.C. 5739.01(E) resale exception, the trucking 
companies owe the sales tax if they bought the services but then resold them in 
the same form to the broadcasting entities.  Otherwise – as the Tax Commissioner 
found – Crew 4 You owes the sales tax. 
{¶ 38} We agree with the Tax Commissioner’s view that the trucking 
companies did not resell employment services, and therefore Crew 4 You owes 
sales tax on its retail sale of those services.  A seller of an “employment service” 
as that term is used in Ohio pays the “wages, salary, or other compensation” of 
the personnel.  R.C. 5739.01(JJ).  The trucking companies did not pay the 
personnel supplied by Crew 4 You, so those companies did not sell an 
employment service.  Crew 4 You was the only seller of employment services in 
the three-way transaction involving Crew 4 You, the trucking companies, and the 
broadcasting entities.  Crew 4 You owes sales taxes on the money it earned for 
providing those services. 
{¶ 39} In a recent case involving the sale of employment services, this 
court rejected another taxpayer’s effort to rely on the resale exception.  In that 
case – Corporate Staffing Resources, Inc. v. Zaino (2002), 95 Ohio St.3d 1, 764 
N.E.2d 1006 – we determined that a provider of employment services was not 
entitled to the resale exception when the computer hardware company that hired 
the temporary employees from the employment-service provider did not resell 
those services.  The computer hardware company had purchased “a temporary and 
flexible work force of sufficient size and expertise,” and the computer company’s 
customers had in turn paid the computer company to keep the customers’ 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
12 
computers up and running.  Id. at 3, 764 N.E.2d 1006.  The employment services 
– the temporary workers – were “a means to an end” for the computer company’s 
customers, rather than an end in itself.  Id.  Those services were not, in other 
words, resold “in the form in which [they had been] received,” as would be 
required for the R.C. 5739.01(E) resale exception to apply to the initial sale of the 
employment services.  The computer company paid for employment services and 
used the workers it hired to service computers.  As we explained in that case, the 
company that had provided the temporary workers and had been paid for that 
service owed taxes on the money it earned in the transaction.  Id. at 4-5, 764 
N.E.2d 1006. 
{¶ 40} The same is true in this case.  Trucking companies “go[ ] to the 
crewing company * * * and ask[ ] them to provide a crew,” according to the 
president of Crew 4 You.  As is undisputed from the Tax Commissioner’s final 
determination, trucking companies pay crewing companies like Crew 4 You for 
providing crew members who can operate audio and video equipment, and the 
trucking companies in turn provide “staffed equipment ready for use in 
broadcasting a sporting event.” 
{¶ 41} As with the computer company in the Corporate Staffing 
Resources case, the trucking companies in this case paid an employment-services 
provider to find skilled workers for certain jobs and then used those workers to 
perform a service needed by a third company.  The employment services were not 
resold by the computer company in Corporate Staffing Resources or by the 
trucking companies in this case.  The company that did sell an “employment 
service” as that term is defined in R.C. 5739.01(JJ) was Crew 4 You, and that 
company now owes taxes, as did the employment-service provider in Corporate 
Staffing Resources. 
{¶ 42} Other decisions from this court support that view.  In Hyatt Corp. 
v. Limbach (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 537, 540, 634 N.E.2d 995, we explained that 
January Term, 2005 
13 
because a hotel’s act of renting rooms to guests for stays of more than 30 
consecutive days was exempted from the sales tax by R.C. 5739.01(N), the hotel 
could not be deemed to have “resold” the use of linens in those rooms that the 
hotel had paid to have cleaned by a linen-cleaning service.  The same principle 
applies in this case:  Because the trucking companies did not sell a taxable 
“employment service” to the broadcasting entities – because the provider of 
“employment service” under R.C. 5739.01(JJ) must pay the “wages, salary, or 
other compensation” of the workers, and Crew 4 You (rather than the trucking 
companies) paid the workers’ wages – the trucking companies cannot be deemed 
to have resold the employment services that they purchased from Crew 4 You.  In 
other words, if the trucking companies did not sell employment services at all, 
then they certainly did not resell them.  See, also, Bellemar Parts Indus., Inc. v. 
Tracy (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 351, 353, 354, 725 N.E.2d 1132 (explaining that 
“where a taxpayer contracts with a company for a service and receives and resells 
the benefit of that service in the same form, the [resale] exception [in R.C. 
5739.01(E)] applies,” and rejecting a taxpayer’s effort to claim the resale 
exception when employment services were not resold in the same form by the 
buyer of them). 
{¶ 43} The BTA went astray by failing to examine whether the trucking 
companies had acted with “the purpose * * * to resell the thing transferred or 
benefit of the service provided * * * in the form in which [it had been] received.”  
R.C. 5739.01(E).  Those critical requirements of the resale exception in the sales 
tax statutes were not satisfied in this case.  The trucking companies did not sell 
employment services as those services are defined in R.C. 5739.01(JJ), so those 
companies certainly cannot be said to have resold the services purchased from 
Crew 4 You.  As we stated in another resale-exception case, a critical question is 
“whether * * * [the buyer of a good or service] ‘sold’ the items” when the original 
seller claims that the resale exception applies.  Gen. Mills Fun Group, Inc., 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
14 
Kenner Products Div. v. Lindley (1982), 1 Ohio St.3d 27, 28, 1 OBR 63, 437 
N.E.2d 591 (rejecting a taxpayer’s request for application of the resale exception 
because the buyer to whom the taxpayer sold artwork did not sell – and therefore 
did not “resell” – the artwork).  The BTA did not examine that question. 
{¶ 44} The record indicates that crewing companies did not sell or resell 
employment services, and if there was no resale, then the resale exception cannot 
apply.  Crew 4 You was the only company that sold employment services in the 
three-way transactions involving Crew 4 You, the trucking companies, and the 
broadcasting entities.  Those sales are taxable, and Crew 4 You – not the trucking 
companies – owes the sales tax on the money it took in from those sales. 
{¶ 45} The BTA’s decision granting Crew 4 You an exemption from sales 
tax under the resale exception is not supported by the law or the facts.  Crew 4 
You sold employment services, but the trucking companies did not.  Instead, the 
trucking companies provided “staffed equipment ready for use in broadcasting a 
sporting event.”  That service is not the same benefit in the same form it was in 
when the trucking companies purchased it from Crew 4 You, and the trucking 
companies certainly did not sell an “employment service” as that term is defined 
in R.C. 5739.01(JJ).  Crew 4 You did sell employment services, and it has not met 
its burden of showing that it is entitled to an exemption from the sales tax that 
R.C. 5739.01(B)(3)(k) imposes on the retail sale of those services. 
{¶ 46} In conclusion, the BTA correctly determined that Crew 4 You sold 
an “employment service” as that term is defined in R.C. 5739.01(JJ) but 
incorrectly found that the R.C. 5739.01(E) resale exception applies to the sales 
that Crew 4 You made to trucking companies.  The decision of the BTA is 
affirmed on the former issue and is reversed on the latter. 
Decision affirmed in part 
and reversed in part. 
January Term, 2005 
15 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR and 
LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, L.L.P., Steven A. Dimengo, and 
David W. Hilkert, for appellee and cross-appellant. 
 
Jim Petro, Attorney General, and Robert C. Maier, Deputy Attorney 
General, for appellant and cross-appellee.