Title: H.R. Options, Inc. v. Wilkins

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as H.R. Options, Inc. v. Wilkins, 102 Ohio St.3d 1214, 2004-Ohio-2085.] 
1 
 
 
H.R. OPTIONS, INC., APPELLEE, v. WILKINS, TAX COMMR., APPELLANT. 
[Cite as H.R. Options, Inc. v. Wilkins, 102 Ohio St.3d 1214, 2004-Ohio-2085.] 
Taxation — Sales tax on company that provides third-party employment services 
for its clients — Exclusions — R.C. 5739.01(JJ)’s definition of an 
“employment service,” applied — Motion for clarification granted — 
Paragraph 17 of opinion clarified. 
(No. 2002-1477 — Submitted March 30, 2004 — Decided May 12, 2004.) 
ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OR CLARIFICATION. 
__________________ 
{¶1} 
The motion for clarification of ¶ 17 of the opinion of January 7, 
2004, found at 100 Ohio St.3d 373, 2004-Ohio-1, 800 N.E.2d 740, is granted. 
{¶2} 
Paragraph 17 of the opinion currently reads:  “Because R.C. 
5739.01(JJ)(3) represents an exclusion from taxation, it must be construed most 
favorably to the taxpayer.”  In granting the Tax Commissioner’s motion, this 
court directs that the sentence will read: “Because R.C. 5739.01(JJ)(3) represents 
an exclusion from taxation, it must be construed strictly against the taxpayer.  In 
re Estate of Roberts (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 311, 316, 762 N.E.2d 1001.” 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR 
and O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
 
PFEIFER, J., dissents. 
__________________ 
 
Bricker & Eckler, L.L.P., and Mark A. Engel, for appellee. 
 
Jim Petro, Attorney General, and Robert C. Maier, Assistant Attorney 
General, for appellant. 
__________________