In a recent development, the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) declined to grant an exclusion for Commercial Activity Tax (CAT) to Aramark Corp in the case of Aramark v. Harris. Ohio CAT, codified under R.C. 5751.02(F)(2)(l), declares an exclusion from gross receipts for property or money received or acquired as an agent beyond the agent’s commission fee or other reimbursement.
Aramark Corp, a key player in this case, is a company that offers food service operations. Their business model involves entering into contracts with various institutions like educational bodies, healthcare units, and government institutions. Their operations are centered around purchasing food and labor, and they also incur other associated costs as part of their business activities.
The central question surrounds whether Aramark can be considered an ‘agent’ as per the definition in the law, thus qualifying for exclusion from the CAT. This is because the language in R.C. 5751.02(F)(2)(l) is such that only those who receive or acquire money or property in excess of their commission or other reimbursement can avail of this exclusion.
The Ohio BTA’s denial of the CAT agent exclusion to Aramark Corp signals a potential shift in how this stipulation of the law may be interpreted, with implications for other companies and institutions. To get a broader understanding of this case and others like it, legal professionals can read the full discussion on the matter.