Court Opinion

ID: 9801592
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 08:51:16.137918+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:53:55.906546
License: Public Domain

Pfeifer, J.,
dissenting.
{¶ 41} The issue before us is a close one. It boils down to whether Bay Mechanical & Electrical Corporation has submitted evidence of its claim for an R.C. 5739.01(JJ)(3) exclusion from sales tax. Bay Mechanical believes that submitting the contracts and a summary of the work assignments at issue to the Board of Tax Appeals (“BTA”), having its controller testify regarding the contracts and work assignments before the BTA, and submitting the underlying *434documentation to the tax commissioner’s counsel are sufficient to establish its claim. I agree.
Brouse McDowell, L.P.A., Joseph T. Dattilo, Thomas J. Ubbing, and Caroline L. Marks, for appellant.
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Sophia Hussain, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
{¶ 42} It would have been better if Bay Mechanical had submitted the information earlier — to the tax commissioner before the necessity of an appeal to the BTA. It would have been better if Bay Mechanical had submitted the underlying documentation to the BTA as well as the tax commissioner. But the bottom line is that the information is now readily available, was available at the time of the appeal to the BTA, and is sufficient to establish Bay Mechanical’s entitlement to the tax exclusion. I dissent.
Lundberg Stratton, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion.