03/20/1997
TP argued it as selling tangible personal property not construction services – TP also argued that the date of 1991 contract governed which NTTC it must have in its possession -pre 1992 vs. post 1992 – TP further argued methodology was improper; Hearing officer ruled that GR 3(C):6 exceeded the definition of Section 7-9-3(C) – TP was selling Tangible Personal Property not construction therefore sales to 501(c)(3)’s and governmental entities were properly deducted where NTTC or other required documentation was present – HO agreed that certain transactions “skewed” the percentage of error.