Since the poles were personal property (i.e., business fixtures), the taxpayer’s purchase was subject to Ohio sales / use tax unless an exemption applied. In Conduent State & Local Solutions, Inc. v. Harris, Ohio BTA Case No. 2021-374 (April 25, 2025), the taxpayer’s business involved issuing tickets on behalf of municipalities for red-light traffic signal photo enforcement. It owned the underlying property used in the enforcement, which included poles upon which cameras were placed. The taxpayer asserted the poles were real property, being “fixtures” and not “business fixtures” since they were essentially utility poles having multiple uses beyond traffic signal enforcement. However, the BTA found the property had only one purpose – monitor traffic; the property was specific to camera enforcement and not for any other business purposes and, therefore, constituted a business fixture. Per the BTA, the property was not really a utility pole but a specialized camera pole.
The BTA ruled the taxpayer was not entitled to the resale exemption associated with this property because it never transferred possession, control, or the right to use such property. It was the occupant and consumer of the property in performing its traffic enforcement services. For a similar case involving red-light traffic signal photo enforcement property, see Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. v. Testa, October 24, 2014 (BTA Case No. 2012-2997) (taxpayer, as occupant/owner not entitled to resale exemption). However, we have been successful in establishing that traffic maintenance property was resold to the government during road paving projects and entitled to the resale exemption. See Karvo Paving Co. v. Testa, BTA Case No. 2016-782 (Jan. 4, 2018).
Finally, the taxpayer certainly did not help its case by waiving its right to a BTA evidentiary hearing to solidify factual support.
[View source.]
