Maxxim Med., Inc. v. TracyMaxxim Med., Inc. v. Tracy
{¶ 2} Maxxim claims exemption for these transactions under
{¶ 3} The BTA, on appeal, affirmed the commissioner‘s order assessing the disputed equipment. The BTA found, following its decision in Kempf Surgical Appliances, Inc. v. Tracy (Feb. 3, 1995), BTA No. 93-D-486, unreported, affirmed in part, reversed in part and cause remanded in Kempf Surgical Appliances, Inc. v. Tracy (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 517, 660 N.E. 2d 444, that the items did not support any part of the human body and did not act as braces. The BTA did not rule on
{¶ 4} The cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right.
Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, Steven A. Dimengo and David L. Drechshler, for appellant.
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, Richard C. Farrin and Steven L. Zisser, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.
Per Curiam.
{¶ 5} Under Kempf Surgical Appliances, Inc. v. Tracy, we grant Maxxim‘s motion to remand this matter to the BTA for it to rule on whether the equipment supplements impaired functions of the human body or aids human perambulation. We note that Maxxim had conceded that this equipment does not support weakened or non-functioning parts of the human body.
{¶ 6} Furthermore, we reserve judgment on whether
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and STRATTON, JJ., concur.