Youngstown Club v. Porterfield

255 N.E.2d 262, 21 Ohio St. 2d 83, 50 Ohio Op. 2d 198, 1970 Ohio LEXIS 438
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided February 4, 1970·No. No. 69-405·Published·Cited by 51 cases

Opinion

DuNcáN, J.

Appellant here contends that the charges are gratuities not constituting sales as defined in Section 5739.01, Revised Code, and, alternatively, that the service charges are in payment for installing or applying property purchased and are therefore excluded from the term “price,” or the base upon which the tax is calculated, under Section 5739.01(H), Revised Code.* Our inquiry is to determine whether the board’s decision was unreasonable or unlawful. Section 5717.04, Revised Code; Smith v. Board of Revision, 138 Ohio St. 564; Board of Edn. v. Evatt, 136 Ohio St. 283; Hercules Galion Products, Inc., v. Bowers, 171 Ohio St. 176.

Section 5739.02, Revised Code, levies a sales tax based upon the price of a retail sale. In defining “sale,” Section 5739.01(B), Revised Code, states, in part:

“ ‘Sale’ and ‘selling’ include * * * the furnishing, preparing, or serving for consideration of any tangible personal property consumed on the premises of the person furnishing, preparing, or serving such tangible personal property. * *

The Club’s new policy of a mandatory service charge replaced the custom of voluntary gratuities or tips, the amounts of which were not included and reported in tax returns viewed as taxable portion of sales. Since the new policy was implemented, admittedly to increase the income of waiters and thereby produce better service to members, it is reasonable to find that the charge, categorized as mandatory, is consistent with the purpose of achieving better club service for the members.

Appellant’s contention that the so-called gratuity is ex-[86] dudable in the computation of a sale is directly contrary to the statutory definition in Section 5739.01(B), Revised Code, quoted above. The Club is furnishing and serving food and drinks, and its billing to members includes the service charge. The fact that the service charge is somewhat segregated from the charge for food and drinks, and will eventually pass to the waiters, does not make that labor cost any different from the amount for fixed labor costs which are included in the price for food and drinks. In finding that these service charges should be included in the price of a sale, the board’s action was neither unreasonable nor unlawful.

The Club, in arguing its right to an exception, also contends that the 15 per cent charge should be excluded from the tax base because Section 5739.01(H), Revised Code, excepts from the price “consideration received for labor or services used in installing or applying the property sold if the consideration for such services is separately stated from the consideration received or to be received for the tangible personal property transferred in the retail sale.” The “separately stated” requirement is discussed in Cogen v. Glander, 156 Ohio St. 263, and Wilson v. Glander, 151 Ohio St. 479, and is not here in issue. The controversy in the instant case focuses upon the meaning of the words “installing” and “applying.” Appellant contends that payment to a person serving food or drink comes within this exception.

In construing statutes, it is customary to give words their plain ordinary meaning unless the legislative body has clearly expressed a contrary intention. Western & Southern Life Ins. Co. v. Huwe, 116 F. 2d 1008; Baker v. Powhattan Mining Co., 146 Ohio St. 600; Carter v. Division of Water, Youngstown, 146 Ohio St. 203; Schario v. State, 105 Ohio St. 535. The words “installing” or “applying,” as applied to personal property, are not ordinarily or customarily associated with the serving of food or drinks. Words ordinarily associated with food are preparing, serving, cooking, furnishing, or words of similar tenor. Moreover, the General Assembly has revealed that [87] it was cognizant of the words which are ordinarily associated with food, by its definition of the word “sale” as including the “furnishing, preparing, or serving for consideration any tangible personal property consumed on the premises of the person furnishing, preparing, or serving such tangible personal property. * * *” Section 5739.01(B), Revised Code. The Club having failed to meet the requirement of affirmatively illustrating its rights to an exception, the board’s determination must stand. See National Tube Co. v. Glander, 157 Ohio St. 407; Merchants Cold Storage Co. v. Glander, 150 Ohio St. 524.

Decision affirmed.

Taft, C. J., Matthias, SchNeideb, IIebbebt and Cobbigan, JJ., concur. O’Neill, J., dissents.

Footnotes

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Youngstown Club v. Porterfield, 255 N.E.2d 262, 21 Ohio St. 2d 83, 50 Ohio Op. 2d 198, 1970 Ohio LEXIS 438 (Ohio 1970).

255 N.E.2d 262 (Youngstown Club v. Porterfield) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Risch
2025 Ohio 2484 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2025)
State v. Brown
2022 Ohio 3736 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2022)
State ex rel. Yost v. Burns
2022 Ohio 1326 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2022)
Columbia Gas Transm., L.L.C. v. The Ohio Valley Coal Co.
2019 Ohio 1004 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2019)
Thomas v. Ohio Dept. of Mental Health
2017 Ohio 7525 (Ohio Court of Claims, 2017)
Johnston v. State
2016 Ohio 4761 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2016)
State v. Thigpen
2016 Ohio 1374 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2016)
State v. Anderson
2015 Ohio 5136 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2015)
M6 Motors, Inc. v. Nissan of N. Olmsted, L.L.C.
2014 Ohio 2537 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2014)
Worley v. State
2014 Ohio 1429 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2014)
Mansaray v. State
2014 Ohio 750 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2014)
State v. Garner
2012 Ohio 3262 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2012)
Columbus Check Cashers, Inc. v. Cary
962 N.E.2d 812 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2011)
Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation v. Williams
905 N.E.2d 201 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2008)
Schaller v. Rogers, 08ap-591 (9-4-2008)
2008 Ohio 4464 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2008)
Hyle v. Porter
117 Ohio St. 3d 165 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2008)
Davis v. Davis
873 N.E.2d 1305 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2007)
Call v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. Corr., 06ap-1057 (5-31-2007)
2007 Ohio 2655 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2007)