128 N.E.2d 14
No. 34297Supreme Court of Ohio.
Decided July 27, 1955.
Taxation — Sales and use tax — Exemption certificates where transaction not subject to tax — Effect of failure to furnish.
APPEAL from the Board of Tax Appeals.
The appellant taxpayer is claiming exceptions from sales and use taxes assessed as to items of personal property claimed to have been sold by appellant to its customers and by them used or consumed in the manufacture of other tangible personal property for sale.
During the audit period in question, appellant was engaged in the business of constructing, maintaining and repairing industrial water wells by purchasing, furnishing and installing pumping equipment, casing and motors for its customers for the production of water which was in turn used by its various customers to further manufacturing and processing, and sometimes mining, agricultural and horticultural processes, claimed to have resulted in the production by appellant’s customers of personal property for sale. Appellant also sold items of personal property used in keeping such wells clean.
The utility of the water derived from these wells took various forms depending on the uses made of it in the operations or procedures of the customer-consumers. Some water produced from the wells was used to cool compressors and condensers in producing gas, to generate steam to operate equipment, to provide a mix, and to cool machines in manufacturing; and some was used in ingredients in making paper, in plants and stores for water supply, sanitary purposes, heating, refrigeration and air conditioning, and in irrigation projects.
The Tax Commissioner made a sales and use tax assessment against the appellant on all sales of water-well construction machinery, tools and equipment sold to its customers, except in those instances where it held exemption certificates, notwithstanding that appellant claimed exceptions from the tax on these transactions. Appellant filed a petition for reassessment,
Page 122
claiming tax exceptions, and the commissioner made certain adjustments of the final assessment but in the main confirmed the assessment. From such order the appellant appealed to the Board of Tax Appeals.
The Board of Tax Appeals affirmed the order of the Tax Commissioner.
An appeal from the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals brings the cause to this court for review.
Mr. Noel L. Greenlee, for appellant.
Mr. C. William O’Neill, attorney general, and Mr. W.E. Herron, for appellee.
Per Curiam.
After an examination of the entire record, this court is unable to find that the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals is unreasonable or unlawful. The decision is, therefore, affirmed.
Decision affirmed.
WEYGANDT, C.J., MATTHIAS, HART, ZIMMERMAN, STEWART and BELL, JJ., concur.