Dayton Press, Inc. v. Lindley
This text of 489 N.E.2d 789 (Dayton Press, Inc. v. Lindley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinions
This case involves this court’s initial review of R.C. 5739.01(E)(8) which grants a sales tax exemption to items used or consumed in the production of printing matters.1 We have previously re[114]*114viewed the manufacturing exception in what is now R.C. 5739.01(E)(2) in R. R. Donnelley & Sons Co. v. Porterfield (1972), 30 Ohio St. 2d 219 [59 O.O.2d 260], In Donnelley we held that items used in the composing room and in the operation of offset plate making were subject to tax on the premise that such items were consumed prior to commencement of the actual press work.
Following the announcement of Donnelley, the General Assembly-amended R.C. 5739.01(E), removing printing from the manufacturing exception, omitting direct use as a limitation to taxation, and adding the phrase “production and preparation in suitable condition for market and sale” to delineate the excepted functions relating to printed matter. The Tax Commissioner suggests that these amendments had no effect on the vitality of Donnelley. This posture is plainly untenable.
We hold that tangible personal property used or consumed during the preparation and production for market and sale of printed matter is excepted from Ohio sales tax pursuant to R.C. 5739.01(E)(8). Likewise, the unloading and storing of raw materials, transportation thereof and the printing of the paper along with the binding and shipping of the final product constitute continuous activities necessary for the preparation for market and sale. To hold that the purchase of tangible personal property used or consumed during the aforementioned process should be subject to sales tax would simply repeal a clear-cut legislative mandate.
We should always give language contained in a statute involving taxation its plain and ordinary meaning. See Youngstown Club v. Porterfield (1970), 21 Ohio St. 2d 83, 86 [50 O.O.2d 198]. “Production” as used by the General Assembly encompasses four major steps as it relates to printed matter. The first involves art and copy preparation; the second involves conversion of the copy into a printing image; the third consists in the press work; and the fourth and final step involves binding and finishing. Strauss, The Printing Industry (1967), at 43. Thus, we must hold that this aspect of the decision of the BTA is contrary to law and must be reversed.
Dayton Press next argues that the BTA erred in its treatment of Dayton Press’ acquisition of certain systems involving rail cars, oil piping, waste oil storage tanks and propane tanks. The Tax Commissioner con[115]*115cedes that the board simply failed to determine whether these systems were incorporated into the taxpayer’s realty. While there may be merit to the argument that these systems were incorporated into improvements of appellant’s realty,2 we must remand this matter to the board for determination in accordance with the practice endorsed in Towmotor Corp. v. Lindley (1981), 66 Ohio St. 2d 53 [20 O.O.3d 43],
Thus, the decision of the BTA is reversed in part and the cause is remanded in part for further proceedings.
Judgment accordingly.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
489 N.E.2d 789, 22 Ohio St. 3d 112, 22 Ohio B. 193, 1986 Ohio LEXIS 564, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dayton-press-inc-v-lindley-ohio-1986.