Ohio Admin. Code 5703-29-13 Commercial Activity Tax Definition of "Agent"
Library | Ohio Administrative Code |
Edition | 2023 |
Currency | Current through all regulations passed and filed through December 25, 2023 |
Citation | Ohio Admin. Code 5703-29-13 |
Year | 2023 |
(A) An "agent" is defined in division (P) of section of the Revised Code to include a person authorized by another to act on its behalf to undertake a transaction for the other. In certain circumstances, portions of the amounts received by a person defined as an "agent" are excluded from the definition of "gross receipts" under division (F) of section 5751.01 of the Revised Code. The agent is only required to report as a "gross receipt" the portion of the amount received that it retains as a commission or fee rather than the entire amount. 5751.01
(B)
-
(1) The supreme court of Ohio has held that
an agency relationship "exists only when one party exercises the right of
control over the actions of another, and those actions are directed toward the
attainment of an objective which the former seeks." See Hanson v. Kynast
(1986), 24 Ohio St.3d 171, 173, citing Baird v. Sickler (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d
652, 654, Councell v. Douglas (1955), 163 Ohio St. 292, and Bobik v. Indus
Comm. (1946), 146 Ohio St. 187, 191-192. Also see Memorial Park Golf Club, Inc
v. Lawrence, 2000 Ohio Tax LEXIS 471 (BTA No. 99-K-633). An agency relationship
is defined as a "consensual fiduciary relationship between two persons where
the agent has the power to bind the principal by his actions, and the principal
has the right to control the actions of the agent." See Evans v. Ohio State
Univ. (1996), 112 Ohio App.3d 724, 744, citing Funk v. Hancock (1985), 26 Ohio
App. 3d 107, 110, in turn citing Haluka v. Baker (1941), 66 Ohio App. 308, 312
In a principal-agent relationship, the agent has the legal authority to act on
behalf of the principal, and generally the principal is bound by and is liable
for those actions. See N&G Construction, Inc. v. Lindley (1978), 56 Ohio
St.2d 415, 418, citing Gulf Oil Corp. v. Kosydar (1975), 44 Ohio St.2d 208
(paragraph two of the syllabus) and Canton v. Imperial Bowling Lanes, Inc
(1968), 16 Ohio St.2d 47 (paragraph four of the syllabus). The party asserting
the existence of an agency relationship bears the burden of proof in that
regard. See Gardner Plumbing, Inc. v. Cottrill (1975), 44 Ohio St.2d 111, 115
citing Union Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. McMillen (1873), 24 Ohio St. 67. Also see
Memorial Park Golf Club, Inc, supra. In determining whether an agency
relationship exists, the rules of statutory construction applicable to
exemptions from taxation must be followed. Ohio law in this regard is
well-established; exemptions from taxation are strictly construed against the
claim of exemption and in favor of the taxing authorities. See Natl. Tube Co.
v. Glander (1952), 157 Ohio St. 407, 409; Beckwith & Assoc. v. Kosydar
(1977), 49 Ohio St.2d 277, 279, and Canton Malleable Iron Co. v. Porterfield
(1972), 30 Ohio St. 2d 163, 166. Also see Memorial Park Golf Club, Inc., supra.
Thus, in determining whether an agency relationship exists, the facts must be
determined under a strict, narrow reading of the definition. Absent proof of an
agency relationship, the entire gross receipt must be reported by the person
receiving the gross receipt for purposes of the commercial activity
tax.
-
(2) The commissioner will look
beyond the wording of the contract to the actual facts and circumstances of the
situation to determine whether an agency relationship actually exists. See H.R.
Options, Inc. v. Zaino (2004), 100 Ohio St.3d 373.
(C) Division (P) of section of the Revised Code defines "agent" to include certain individuals acting on behalf of another. Each of the following individuals is included in the list in that division and qualifies as an "agent" for purposes of this rule: 5751.01
-
(1)
To continue reading
Request your trial