Campus Bus Serv. V. Zaino

Decision Date30 April 2003
Docket NumberNo. 2002-0914.,No. 2002-0915.,2002-0914.,2002-0915.
Citation2003 Ohio 1915,98 Ohio St.3d 463,786 N.E.2d 889
PartiesCAMPUS BUS SERVICE, Appellant, v. ZAINO, Tax Commr., Appellee. (Two Cases.)
CourtOhio Supreme Court

Amer Cunningham Co., L.P.A., Andrew R. Duff, Akron, and Thomas R. Houlihan, for appellants.

Jim Petro, Attorney General, and Richard C. Farrin, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

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 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:

{¶ 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.

{¶ 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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • Gabbard v. Madison Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ.
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • June 23, 2021
    ...time. For instance, courts often rely on dictionaries to pinpoint the ordinary meaning of undefined terms. See, e.g. , Campus Bus Serv. v. Zaino , 98 Ohio St.3d 463, 2003-Ohio-1915, 786 N.E.2d 889, ¶ 21 ; Food Marketing Inst. at ––––, 139 S.Ct. at 2363.{¶ 121} This court also frequently emp......
  • O'Donnell v. Fin. Am. Life Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio
    • March 21, 2016
    ...'common, everyday meaning of a word, [Ohio courts] have consistently used dictionary definitions' ” (quoting Campus Bus Serv. v. Zaino , 98 Ohio St.3d 463, 786 N.E.2d 889 (2003) )). In Jenkins, for example, the Ohio Supreme Court considered an insurance application that contained the questi......
  • Satullo v. Wilkins
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • November 29, 2006
    ..."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, ¶ The Appellants' Compliance with R.C. 5717.04 {¶ 16} Before we address the merits of the case, a pr......
  • Cincinnati Fed. Sav. & Loan Co. v. McClain
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • March 15, 2022
    ...claim"); Anderson/Maltbie Partnership at ¶ 16 ("laws that exempt property from tax * * * must be strictly construed"); Campus Bus Serv. v. Zaino , 98 Ohio St.3d 463, 2003-Ohio-1915, 786 N.E.2d 889, ¶ 8 (same); Satullo at ¶ 15 (same); but see Columbia Gas Transm. Corp. v. Levin , 117 Ohio St......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT