Title: Gallenstein v. Testa

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Gallenstein v. Testa, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-98.] 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2014-OHIO-98 
GALLENSTEIN, APPELLANT, v. TESTA, TAX COMMR., APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as Gallenstein v. Testa, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-98.] 
R.C. 5741.02(C)(4)—Boat owner qualified for transient-use exception to use 
tax—BTA acted unreasonably and unlawfully in affirming tax 
commissioner’s assessment of use tax. 
(No. 2012-1971—Submitted October 8, 2014—Decided January 22, 2014.) 
APPEAL from the Board of Tax Appeals, No. 2008-A-1340. 
____________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Cheryl Gallenstein appeals from a decision of the Board of Tax 
Appeals that determined that her “use of the subject boat does not qualify as an 
exempt use, pursuant to R.C. 5741.02(C)(4), because the boat is required to be 
registered, pursuant to the provisions of R.C. 1547.531.”  Gallenstein v. Levin, 
BTA No. 2008-A-1340, 2012 WL 5465162 at *5 (Oct. 23, 2012).  However, 
because Gallenstein does qualify for the transient use exception contained in R.C. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
5741.02(C)(4), the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals is unreasonable and 
unlawful and is therefore reversed. 
Facts and Procedural History 
{¶ 2} In June 2002, Cheryl and John T. Gallenstein—Kentucky 
residents—purchased a 44-foot Sea Ray Sundancer with twin inboards from a 
private owner in Indiana for $205,000.  The Gallensteins did not pay any taxes on 
the boat in Kentucky or Indiana.  Neither did they register the boat in either of 
those states.  They docked their boat at Lighthouse Point Yacht Club in Aurora, 
Indiana, and titled it in Cheryl’s name.  With the assistance of Ruthann 
Eichelberger—a consultant recommended by the seller of the boat—Cheryl 
obtained a certificate of documentation from the United States Coast Guard that 
lists her as the owner and managing owner, lists Cincinnati as the hailing port, and 
includes an “operational endorsement[]” of “recreation.”  They chose Cincinnati 
as the hailing port because they thought it would be recognized if they cruised to 
Florida on vacation. 
{¶ 3} The evidence shows that on one occasion, John Gallenstein used 
an Ohio business to repair a diesel engine that he removed from the boat.  It also 
shows that the Gallensteins primarily operated their boat in Kentucky and Indiana 
waters, downriver from Cincinnati, because the water there was cleaner and less 
crowded.  Operating the boat downriver also provided them with a more family-
friendly boating experience.  Between June 2002 and the end of the 2004 boating 
season, they crossed into Ohio waters between five and ten times when operating 
the boat.  In 2005, they operated the boat in the Ohio River once or twice but, it is 
not apparent from the record whether they operated it in Ohio waters during that 
year.  On occasion, the Gallensteins cruised upriver with guests to see the 
Cincinnati skyline, watch Cincinnati Reds and Bengals games from the boat, and 
view Cincinnati fireworks displays.  During these trips, Cincinnati police stopped 
January Term, 2014 
3 
 
their boat, boarded and inspected it, reviewed documents, and then permitted 
them to continue boating. 
{¶ 4} John Gallenstein contacted Eichelberger to inquire why the 
Cincinnati police had been stopping his boat and testified that Eichelberger told 
him, “ ‘You’re just being harassed by the Cincinnati police.  If you don’t want to 
have any problems, I recommend you get an Ohio sticker.’ ”  As a result, 
Gallenstein applied for an Ohio watercraft registration and indicated on the 
application that the boat would be principally used in Kentucky and Indiana 
waters.  On May 21, 2003, the Division of Watercraft of the Ohio Department of 
Natural Resources (“ODNR”) issued a sticker and a three-year registration 
certificate, listing the boat’s type of use as “Pleasure.”  John Gallenstein affixed 
the sticker to the boat, and afterward, they experienced no more instances of 
police boarding their boat. 
{¶ 5} In 2005, however, the Ohio Department of Taxation audited 
Gallenstein, inquiring about her purchase of the boat.  Agent Dennis Woolley 
asked Gallenstein for verification that she paid sales or use tax for the boat in 
Ohio or another state and for copies of various documents.  Gallenstein responded 
that she did not believe that Ohio taxes were due and provided some of the 
requested documents.  She also noted: 
 
The vessel carries an Ohio watercraft sticker only as a 
precaution.  Although the vessel has never been housed or moored 
in Ohio, several times a year I do operate the boat from its housing 
in Indiana to the Cincinnati central riverfront area.  In this area, 
part of the Ohio River is within Ohio and part is in Kentucky.  As 
boats operated in this area are often boarded and inspected by the 
Port of Cincinnati water officials, I obtain[ed] the Ohio sticker to 
be safe in operating in the area. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
 
{¶ 6} In reply, Woolley informed her that the fact that she had docked 
and stored the boat at Lighthouse Point Yacht Club “would require you to have an 
Indiana registration and not an Ohio registration.  A registration should be 
obtained in the state where you are principally using the waters of that state.”  He 
further stated, “[Y]ou will be required to cancel your Ohio Watercraft 
Registration” and provide proof of its cancellation, and he informed her that if she 
failed to provide proof of cancellation, the state would pursue the use tax due.  
Gallenstein tried to cancel the boat’s Ohio registration without success.  She 
informed Woolley that staff at ODNR’s headquarters advised her that “the only 
way to cancel a registration is not to renew the registration upon its expiration” 
and she did not intend to renew the registration after it expired. 
{¶ 7} Woolley replied that Gallenstein’s response “does not satisfy the 
State of Ohio request for proof of tax paid,” and he recommended that the 
department assess a use tax, plus pre-assessment interest and a penalty, based on 
the boat’s having been registered in Ohio. 
{¶ 8} On November 8, 2005, the tax commissioner issued a notice of 
assessment for the audit period of May 1, 2003, through June 30, 2003, assessed a 
use tax of $12,000, imposed an $1,800 penalty, and assessed $1,252.93 in pre-
assessment interest.  Gallenstein petitioned for reassessment and requested 
remission of the penalty and the interest, asserting, among other things, that any 
use of the boat in Ohio constituted transient use pursuant to R.C. 5741.02(C)(4). 
{¶ 9} On June 12, 2008, the commissioner issued a final determination 
affirming the use tax, penalty, and interest assessment.  The commissioner 
determined that Gallenstein’s use of the boat in Ohio, combined with her 
declaration of Cincinnati as the boat’s hailing port and her registration of the boat 
in Ohio, “created nexus between the boat and Ohio” and that she did not qualify 
for the transient use exception. 
January Term, 2014 
5 
 
{¶ 10} Gallenstein appealed to the BTA, asserting that the commissioner 
erred by assessing the use tax because she “had no substantial nexus with Ohio” 
and by not applying the transient use exception in R.C. 5741.02(C)(4), and that 
the penalty was improper because the underlying assessment was invalid.  
Gallenstein, 2012 WL 5465162 at *1-2.  The BTA affirmed the commissioner’s 
decision, concluding that Gallenstein’s use of the boat in Ohio satisfied the 
definition of use in R.C. 5741.01(C) and that she did not qualify for the transient 
use exception pursuant to R.C. 5741.02(C)(4). 
{¶ 11} Gallenstein has now appealed to this court, urging that her 
registration of the boat in Ohio is not sufficient to create a taxable nexus, that she 
met all the requirements of the transient use exception in R.C. 5741.02(C)(4), and 
that the tax commissioner should not have assessed the penalty, because the 
underlying assessment is improper. 
{¶ 12} The tax commissioner asks this court to affirm the decision of the 
BTA, asserting that Gallenstein’s use and enjoyment of the boat in Ohio waters, 
the rebuilding of the boat’s engine in Ohio, and her registering of the boat in Ohio 
constitute use as defined in R.C. 5741.01(C), and therefore, the boat is subject to 
Ohio taxation.  He maintains that Gallenstein does not satisfy the requirements of 
the transient use exception in R.C. 5741.02(C)(4) because she has “actively and 
within her discretion operated [her] yacht on Ohio waters, resulting in such a 
presence within the State that the yacht must be registered with the Ohio Division 
of Watercraft.”  (Emphasis added.)  And the commissioner claims that her boat 
does not satisfy the requirements of R.C. 1547.531(B)(3), which exempts certain 
watercraft from Ohio registration. 
{¶ 13} Accordingly, the issue in this case is whether the BTA properly 
imposed a use tax on Gallenstein. 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
Law and Analysis 
{¶ 14} We review a decision of the BTA to determine whether it is 
reasonable and lawful, and we will reverse a decision that is based on an incorrect 
legal conclusion.  Satullo v. Wilkins, 111 Ohio St.3d 399, 2006-Ohio-5856, 856 
N.E.2d 954, ¶ 14.  “Any claimed exemption from taxation ‘must be strictly 
construed,’ and the taxpayer ‘must affirmatively establish his or her right’ to the 
exemption.”  Id. at ¶ 15, quoting Campus Bus Serv. v. Zaino, 98 Ohio St.3d 463, 
2003-Ohio-1915, 786 N.E.2d 889, ¶ 8.  In Satullo, we stated that “ ‘[t]he BTA is 
responsible for determining factual issues and, if the record contains reliable and 
probative support for these BTA determinations,’ this court will affirm them.”  Id. 
at ¶ 14, quoting Am. Natl. Can Co. v. Tracy, 72 Ohio St.3d 150, 152, 648 N.E.2d 
483 (1995). 
{¶ 15} R.C. 5741.02(A)(1) establishes a use tax and authorizes an excise 
tax “on the storage, use, or other consumption in this state of tangible personal 
property or the benefit realized in this state of any service provided.”  Pursuant to 
R.C. 5741.02(B), “[e]ach consumer, storing, using, or otherwise consuming in 
this state tangible personal property or realizing in this state the benefit of any 
service provided, shall be liable for the tax * * *.” 
{¶ 16} R.C. 5741.02(C), however, provides exceptions to the tax and 
states: 
 
The tax does not apply to the storage, use, or consumption 
in this state of the following described tangible personal property 
or services, nor to the storage, use, or consumption or benefit in 
this state of tangible personal property or services purchased under 
the following described circumstances: 
* * * 
January Term, 2014 
7 
 
(4) Transient use of tangible personal property in this state 
by a nonresident tourist or vacationer, or a nonbusiness use within 
this state by a nonresident of this state, if the property so used was 
purchased outside this state for use outside this state and is not 
required to be registered or licensed under the laws of this state. 
 
{¶ 17} R.C. 5741.01 does not define the term transient use.  Pursuant to 
R.C. 1.42, this term should be read in context and construed according to common 
usage unless this term has acquired a technical or particular meaning.  See 
Cincinnati School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. State Bd. of Edn., 122 Ohio St.3d 557, 
2009-Ohio-3628, 913 N.E.2d 421, ¶ 15.  In common usage, the term transient 
means “passing through or by a place with only a brief stay or sojourn,” and the 
term use means “the act or practice of using something.”  Webster’s Third New 
International Dictionary 2428, 2523 (2002). 
{¶ 18} In its decision, the BTA, relying on its own precedent, determined 
that the term transient use “ ‘connotes a use of a short or temporary duration’ ” 
and that a period of 60 consecutive days “would seem to be an appropriate and 
reasonable guideline” for determining whether an owner’s use of a boat in Ohio 
had been transient.  Gallenstein, 2012 WL 5465162 at *4, quoting Steenrod v. 
Tracy, BTA Nos. 1991-A-1108 and 1991-A-1109, 1993 WL 186521, *3 (May 21, 
1993).  The BTA further determined that the record “clearly establishes appellant 
resides in the state of Kentucky and therefore, is a nonresident of the state of 
Ohio.”  Id.  The BTA also rejected the tax commissioner’s contention that 
Gallenstein was not a tourist or vacationer in this state because of the proximity of 
her residence to her husband’s business in Ohio, stating:  
 
While the proximity of appellant’s residence to Ohio and 
the location of appellant’s husband’s business in Ohio may 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
contradict a characterization of appellant as an out-of-town 
“tourist,” we disagree with the commissioner’s generalization that 
appellant cannot be considered a “vacationer” in Ohio; on the 
contrary, since it is undisputed that the boat is only being used for 
recreational purposes, appellant, when using the boat, can be 
considered a “vacationer” in any location, in any state.  A person 
can be designated a “vacationer,” regardless of the proximity of the 
vacation destination to one’s home.  Further, appellant and her 
husband testified that the boat had been docked in Indiana since its 
purchase and that they preferred to take the boat to locales other 
than Ohio because of the boat traffic and other environmental 
concerns in Ohio and, as a result, the total number of days in Ohio 
waters since the boat’s purchase in June 2002 was less than sixty 
days.  * * *  In addition, appellant’s Ohio Division of Watercraft 
registration application acknowledges appellant’s intention to 
principally use the boat in Kentucky and Indiana. 
 
(Emphasis added.)  Id. 
{¶ 19} Based on this reasoning, the BTA concluded that Gallenstein met 
the statutory requirements of the first part of R.C. 5741.02(C)(4)’s test, i.e., 
“[t]ransient use of tangible personal property in this state by a nonresident tourist 
or vacationer, or a nonbusiness use within this state by a nonresident of this state, 
if the property so used was purchased outside this state for use outside this state.”  
However, the BTA determined that Gallenstein did not establish that she was not 
required to register her boat in Ohio.  Gallenstein at *4-5. 
{¶ 20} R.C. 1547.531 sets forth the registration requirements for 
watercraft in Ohio.  It provides: 
 
January Term, 2014 
9 
 
(A)(1) Except as provided in division (A)(2) or (B) of this 
section, no person shall operate or give permission for the 
operation of any watercraft on the waters in this state unless the 
watercraft is registered in the name of the current owner in 
accordance with [R.C. 1547.54], and the registration is valid and in 
effect. 
* * * 
(B) All of the following watercraft are exempt from 
registration: 
* * * 
(3) Those that have been documented by the United States 
coast guard or its successor as temporarily transitting, whose 
principal use is not on the waters in this state, and that have not 
been used within this state for more than sixty days. 
 
{¶ 21} Registering a boat in Ohio is not the same as being required to 
register a boat in Ohio because R.C. 1547.531(B)(3) exempts from registration 
watercraft that have been documented by the United States Coast Guard or its 
successor as “temporarily transitting.”  Despite this exemption provision, the term 
“temporarily transitting” does not appear in federal regulations governing the 
United States Coast Guard’s documentation of vessels, see 46 C.F.R. 67.1 et seq., 
and it is not referred to as an endorsement in the federal regulations, see 46 C.F.R. 
67.17 (registry endorsement), 46 C.F.R. 67.19 (coastwise endorsement), 46 
C.F.R. 67.21 (fishery endorsement), 46 C.F.R. 67.23 (recreational endorsement).  
When the General Assembly enacts a statute, a just and reasonable result and a 
result feasible of execution is intended.  R.C. 1.47(C) and (D).  In this case, 
because the term “temporarily transitting” does not appear in federal regulations 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
10 
 
governing the United States Coast Guard’s documentation of vessels, the BTA 
unreasonably and unlawfully interpreted R.C. 1547.531(B)(3) when it stated: 
 
While the appellant’s boat arguably meets the principal use 
and maximum day provisions of the statute, we find no evidence in 
the record that the U.S. Coast Guard has documented the boat as 
“temporarily transitting.”  * * * Accordingly, we find appellant’s 
use of the subject boat does not qualify as an exempt use, pursuant 
to R.C. 5741.02(C)(4), because the boat is required to be 
registered, pursuant to the provisions of R.C. 1547.531. 
 
(Footnote omitted.)  Gallenstein, 2012 WL 5465162, *5. 
{¶ 22} To require Gallenstein to show that her boat has been documented 
as temporarily transitting by the United States Coast Guard when it does not 
appear that the United States Coast Guard issues a temporary transitting 
endorsement is unreasonable because no one could qualify for this exemption.  
And the fact that Gallenstein arguably could have registered her boat in Kentucky 
or Indiana, see Kentucky Rev.Stat.Ann. 235.010 et seq.; Indiana Code Ann. 9-31-
3-1 et seq., militates against the conclusion reached by the BTA that boat is 
required to be registered in Ohio pursuant to R.C. 1547.531.  Gallenstein at *5.  
Despite her best efforts, Gallenstein was not able to cancel her Ohio registration 
as ordered by the tax department, and assessment of a use tax on that basis is also 
unreasonable.  The fact remains that from 2002 through 2004, Gallenstein 
operated her boat in Ohio waters fewer than a dozen times, and her principal use 
was not on the waters of this state.  It is unreasonable and unlawful to assess a 
$12,000 use tax, an $1,800 penalty, and $1,252.93 in pre-assessment interest on a 
Kentucky resident who purchased a boat in Indiana and who harbors it there and 
January Term, 2014 
11 
 
who chose to register that boat in Ohio to reduce the chances of police boarding it 
on the few occasions she operated it in Ohio waters. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 23} Because the BTA acted unreasonably and unlawfully in affirming 
the tax commissioner’s use tax, penalty, and pre-assessment interest, its decision 
is reversed. 
Decision reversed. 
PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, KENNEDY, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and LANZINGER, J., dissent. 
FRENCH, J., dissents and would affirm the decision and analysis of the 
BTA. 
__________________ 
 
LANZINGER, J., dissenting. 
{¶ 24} Because I believe that Gallenstein was required to register her 44-
foot Sea Ray in Ohio and has not satisfied the requirements of transient use as set 
forth in R.C. 5741.02(C)(4), I dissent.  I would hold that the BTA properly upheld 
the imposed use tax, and I would affirm the decision of the BTA. 
{¶ 25} It is presumed that “every sale or use of tangible personal property 
in Ohio is * * * taxable.”  Std. Oil Co. v. Peck, 163 Ohio St. 63, 65, 125 N.E.2d 
342 (1955).  As a result, statutes relating to the exemption or exception from sales 
or use taxes are to be strictly construed, and one must affirmatively show a right 
to a claimed exemption or exception.  Canton Malleable Iron Co. v. Porterfield, 
30 Ohio St.2d 163, 166, 283 N.E.2d 434 (1972) (cataloguing cases); see also 
Campus Bus Serv. v. Zaino, 98 Ohio St.3d 463, 2003-Ohio-1915, 786 N.E.2d 889, 
¶ 8; R. Wantz & Sons Constr. Co. v. Kosydar, 38 Ohio St.2d 277, 280, 313 N.E.2d 
360 (1974). 
{¶ 26} I do not believe that Gallenstein has met her burden of 
“affirmatively proving [her] entitlement” to the transient-use exception.  Bay 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
12 
 
Mechanical & Elec. Corp. v. Testa, 133 Ohio St.3d 423, 2012-Ohio-4312, 978 
N.E.2d 882, ¶ 16.  The fourth of R.C. 5741.02(C)’s nine exceptions to the use tax 
is at issue here.  It states: 
 
(4) Transient use of tangible personal property in this state 
by a nonresident tourist or vacationer, or a nonbusiness use within 
this state by a nonresident of this state, if the property so used was 
purchased outside this state for use outside this state and is not 
required to be registered or licensed under the laws of this state. 
 
{¶ 27} To be entitled to the use-tax exemption, Gallenstein was required 
to prove four things:  First, that her use of the Sea Ray in Ohio was “transient,” 
second that she, as user of the personal property in Ohio, was a nonresident tourist 
or vacationer or a nonresident who was using the property for nonbusiness 
purposes, third, that the Sea Ray was purchased outside Ohio for use outside 
Ohio, and finally that the Sea Ray was not required to be registered or licensed 
under Ohio law. 
{¶ 28} I agree with the BTA’s determination that Gallenstein and her 
husband were nonresident tourists or vacationers, Gallenstein v. Levin, BTA No. 
2008-A-1340, 2012 WL 5465162 at *4 (Oct. 23, 2012), and that they 
undisputedly had purchased the boat for use primarily outside Ohio, id. at *5.  
The open questions are confined to the first and fourth requirements. 
The use of the Sea Ray was not “transient” 
{¶ 29} The Revised Code does not define “transient use.”  But for 
purposes of use tax, R.C. 5741.01(C) broadly defines “use” to include “the 
exercise of any right or power incidental to ownership of the thing used.”  
(Emphasis added.)  The Gallenstein Sea Ray was registered with the Ohio 
Department of Natural Resources (“ODNR”) from May 2003 until March 2006.  
January Term, 2014 
13 
 
The right to register a watercraft is certainly an incident of ownership, and that 
right was exercised by Gallenstein here in Ohio. 
{¶ 30} Consistent with Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 
2428 (2002), which defines “transient” as “passing through or by a place with 
only a brief stay or sojourn,” the BTA concluded that “transient use” “ ‘connotes 
a use of a short or temporary duration.’ ”  Gallenstein at *4, quoting Steenrod v. 
Tracy, BTA Nos. 1991-A-1108 and 1991-A-1109, 1993 WL 186521, *3 (May 21, 
1993).  After examining statutes on watercraft registration, the BTA chose 60 
days as “an appropriate and reasonable guideline” for determining whether an 
owner’s use of a boat in Ohio is transient.  Id.  But one “use” that triggers the use 
tax in Ohio is a boat’s registration in Ohio.  When a boat is registered in Ohio, 
that registration is effective every single day from the date it is issued until the 
date it expires.  The Gallenstein watercraft was registered from May 2003 until 
March 2006. 
{¶ 31} I would hold that no matter how often an owner actually operates a 
boat in Ohio, the operation cannot qualify for the transient-use exception while 
the boat is registered with the ODNR.  In other words, the notion of “transient 
use” is incompatible with the holding of an active Ohio registration.  Gallenstein’s 
registration of the Sea Ray prevents her use of the boat in Ohio from being 
labeled as “transient,” and she accordingly fails to satisfy the first requirement of 
the transient-user exception. 
The Sea Ray was required to be registered or licensed under Ohio law 
{¶ 32} Furthermore, even if Gallenstein’s use were transient, this would 
satisfy only one requirement under R.C. 5741.02(C)(4).  She still must show that 
her Sea Ray was not required to be registered—and this she did not do.  The 
statute setting forth the registration requirements for watercraft in Ohio, R.C. 
1547.531, provides: 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
14 
 
 
(A)(1) Except as provided in division (A)(2) or (B) of this 
section, no person shall operate or give permission for the 
operation of any watercraft on the waters in this state unless the 
watercraft is registered in the name of the current owner in 
accordance with [R.C. 1547.54], and the registration is valid and in 
effect. 
 
(Emphasis added.)  The exception mentioned in division (A)(2) is inapplicable, 
relating as it does to a temporary registration following the sale of a watercraft.  
Among the exemptions in division (B) is a provision relating to temporary use: 
 
(3) Those that have been documented by the United States 
coast guard or its successor as temporarily transitting, whose 
principal use is not on the waters in this state, and that have not 
been used within this state for more than sixty days. 
 
{¶ 33} The majority emphasizes that the United States Coast Guard does 
not issue any documentation that endorses watercraft as “temporarily transitting.”  
And it concludes that because Gallenstein could not qualify for this exemption, 
she was not required to register her boat in Ohio.  Nevertheless, the inability to 
meet the documentation portion of the exemption merely means the exemption 
itself does not apply.  It does not invalidate R.C. 1547.531’s clear requirement 
that no person shall operate watercraft in Ohio waters unless the watercraft has 
proper registration.  I agree with the BTA’s determination that Gallenstein failed 
to establish that she was not required to register her boat in Ohio.  Gallenstein, 
2012 WL 5465162 at *4-5.  R.C. 1547.531 clearly requires that watercraft used in 
Ohio must carry valid registration.  She has not satisfied the fourth requirement of 
the transient-user exception. 
January Term, 2014 
15 
 
{¶ 34} Because Gallenstein failed to show both that her use of the Sea 
Ray was transient and that the Sea Ray was not required to be registered or 
licensed under Ohio law, she failed to show that she is entitled to the transient-use 
exception set forth in R.C. 5741.02(C)(4).  Accordingly, I would affirm the 
BTA’s determination that the transient-use exception does not apply in this case 
and that Gallenstein is subject to the use tax. 
 
O’CONNOR, C.J., concurs in the foregoing opinion. 
____________________ 
 
Lindhorst & Dreidame Co., L.P.A., James H. Smith, III, and Bradley D. 
McPeek, for appellant. 
 
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Melissa W. Baldwin, Barton A. 
Hubbard, and Julie Brigner, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee. 
________________________