# Bay Mechanical & Electrical Corp. v. Testa

> Ohio Supreme Court · September 26, 2012 · 133 Ohio St. 3d 423

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9801592

## Case

- **Full name:** Bay Mechanical & Electrical Corporation, Appellant, v. Testa, Tax Commr., Appellee
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** September 26, 2012
- **Citations:** 133 Ohio St. 3d 423; 978 N.E.2d 882; 2012 Ohio 4312
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Pfeifer
- **Judges:** O'Connor, Lanzinger, Cupp, Brown, Pfeifer, Stratton, O'Donnell
- **Cited by:** 5 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9801592

## Opinion text

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 *434 documentation 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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9801592. Public record. Not legal advice.