H.R. Options, Inc. v. Wilkins

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[Cite as H.R. Options, Inc. v. Wilkins, 102 Ohio St.3d 1214, 2004-Ohio-2085.] H.R. OPTIONS, INC., APPELLEE, v. WILKINS, TAX COMMR., APPELLANT. [Cite as H.R. Options, Inc. v. Wilkins, 102 Ohio St.3d 1214, 2004-Ohio-2085.] Taxation Sales tax on company that provides third-party employment services for its clients Exclusions R.C. 5739.01(JJ) s definition of an employment service, applied Motion for clarification granted Paragraph 17 of opinion clarified. (No. 2002-1477 Submitted March 30, 2004 Decided May 12, 2004.) ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OR CLARIFICATION. __________________ {¶1} The motion for clarification of ¶ 17 of the opinion of January 7, 2004, found at 100 Ohio St.3d 373, 2004-Ohio-1, 800 N.E.2d 740, is granted. {¶2} Paragraph 17 of the opinion currently reads: Because R.C. 5739.01(JJ)(3) represents an exclusion from taxation, it must be construed most favorably to the taxpayer. In granting the Tax Commissioner s motion, this court directs that the sentence will read: Because R.C. 5739.01(JJ)(3) represents an exclusion from taxation, it must be construed strictly against the taxpayer. In re Estate of Roberts (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 311, 316, 762 N.E.2d 1001. MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O CONNOR and O DONNELL, JJ., concur. PFEIFER, J., dissents. __________________ Bricker & Eckler, L.L.P., and Mark A. Engel, for appellee. Jim Petro, Attorney General, and Robert C. Maier, Assistant Attorney General, for appellant. __________________ 1

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.