Wesleyan University Press, Inc. v. Donahue, 40206
| Decision Date | 09 November 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 40206,40206 |
| Citation | 221 N.E.2d 590,8 Ohio St.2d 4 |
| Parties | , 37 O.O.2d 211 The WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY PRESS, INC., Appellant, v. DONAHUE, Tax Commr., Appellee. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, Charles D. Minor, Columbus, Lee, Toomey & Kent and John M. Skilling, Washington, D. C., for appellant.
William B. Saxbe, Atty. Gen., and Edgar L. Lindley, Columbus, for appellee.
This appeal involves electronic data processing equipment and supplies used in connection therewith. This equipment produces magnetic tapes used in the distribution of appellant's publications and promotional material. The tapes contain customer addresses, label information and statistical information, perform certain payroll functions, and, after being processed, are removed from the equipment. The Board of Tax Appeals found that this equipment plays no direct part in the manufacturing or in the wrapping or packaging of appellant's product, and that the rental or purchase of same should not be excepted from the sales and use taxes.
The tapes, after being removed from such equipment, are placed in another class of equipment and control the production of rolls of mailing and shipping labels which are directly attached to mailing wrappers and contain subscriber information, such as names, addresses, periodicals, quantity, issues and account numbers. Other equipment in this class is used exclusively for promotion and advertising and directly addresses customers' products for shipment. The Board of Tax Appeals found that this class of equipment is used directly in the production and shipping process of appellant's product, and that the rental and purchase thereof should be excepted from the sales and use taxes.
Appellant's second assignment of error that the so-called 'use-on-use' exception created by the amendment of Section 5739.02, Revised Code, effective January 2, 1962, should have been applied was not raised before the Board of Tax Appeals and will not be considered here.
The decision of the Board of Tax Appeals not being unreasonable or unlawful is hereby affirmed.
Decision affirmed.
WHITE, J., of the Eighth Appellate District, sitting for SCHNEIDER, J.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cardinal Federal Sav. and Loan Ass'n v. Cuyahoga County Bd. of Revision
...the syllabus; R. R. Donnelley & Sons Co. v. Porterfield (1972), 30 Ohio St.2d 219, 222, 284 N.E.2d 171; Wesleyan University Press v. Donahue (1966) 8 Ohio St.2d 4, 5, 221 N.E.2d 590), and we therefore proceed to the merits of the The ultimate question presented is whether the decision of th......
-
Plastic Tooling Aids Laboratory, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue Services
...564 S.W.2d 14, 16 (Ky.1978); and magnetic tapes containing customer and payroll information. Wesleyan University Press, Inc. v. Donahue, 8 Ohio St.2d 4, 5, 221 N.E.2d 590 (1966). Although each of these cases interprets statutes that differ in some particulars from our own, they confirm the ......
-
City of Painesville v. Lake County Budget Commission
...notice or to respond in any form to appellee's motion to dismiss), we decline to address them. See Wesleyan University Press, Inc., v. Tax Commr. (1966), 8 Ohio St.2d 4, 5, 221 N.E.2d 590.3 The disputed portions of appellant's notice of appeal read as follows:"The appellant is dissatisfied ......
-
R. R. Donnelley & Sons Co. v. Porterfield
...was not raised before the Board of Tax Appeals, and thus need not be considered here. Wesleyan University Press, Inc. v. Donahue, Tax Commr. (1966), 8 Ohio St.2d 4, 5, 221 N.E.2d 590. Moreover, such issue was not raised in this court and, in response to questions propounded to counsel for a......