ÿWPCy …# VU:a %› 0(¡w@É4  , 4 0J< 0T† 0^Ú 0h8 0r  0| 0†Ž 0 1u¤ U, 0ÀE U,U*1B)[DC„ AMÇ Bß1v~vÓŽ D3a 0@” AOÔÆ# 0Dé D/- B\˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 ,†r‰AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡ «D¬­®U¯D°±D²³Ó€½DÒ 3|x½2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernPp ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓÑ\R€€\Ñ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d""""7Border 1dd€-#Cþÿ << Gÿÿ d ÕÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÔ€!ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€!XÔÌÌJuly€24,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€  X„d&ÓÑ#€  Xd#ÑÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÓ  Óò òÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€ÊXXdædÈ7Ñ›à@ àòŒòIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLE€ÌÌÌMCI€TELECOMMUNICATIONSà àà à)ÌCORPORATION,à àà àà àà à)€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àóŒóó óPlaintiff/Appellant,ò òà àœà àòŒò)›€€Davidson€Chancery€No.€92„1907„III(I)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€Appeal€No.€01A01„9510„CH„00471ÌÙ€€ÙœßL€$&#;+'h|I`` ç `€€Lß›à àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌJOE€HUDDLESTON,€COMMR.à àà à)ÌOF€REVENUE€OF€THE€STATE€OFà à)ÌTENNESSEE€and€THE€DEPT.à àà à)ÌOF€REVENUE€OF€THE€STATEà àà à)ÌOF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àóŒóó óDefendants/Appellees.ò òà àòŒò)óŒóÌÌÌà@ àó óAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€DAVIDSON€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€IRVIN€H.€KILCREASE,€JR.,€CHANCELLORÌò òÌÌòŒòDOUGLAS€A.€RICHARDSóŒóÌó óWashington,€D.C.ò òÌó óAttorney€for€Plaintiff/Appellantò òÌÌòŒòEVERETT€B.€GIBSONÌDANTON€ASHER€BERUBEÌEVERETT€B.€GIBSON€LAW€FIRMÌó óóŒóMemphis,€Tennesseeò òÌó óAttorneys€for€Plaintiff/Appellantò òÌÌÌÌòŒòCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌœAttorney›€œGeneral›€œand›€œReporter›ÌœJOE›€C.€PEELÌœAssistant›€œAttorney›€œGeneral›Ìó óóŒóNashville,€TennesseeÌœAttorneys›€for€Defendants/AppelleesÌò òÌÌÌòŒòAFFIRMEDÌÌÌóŒóà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòŒòALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.óŒóœà àó óÌÌÓÓà àMCI›€Telecommunications€Corp.€brought€this€suit€challenging€certain€sales€andÏuse€Ñ7€ÊXXdæXXdæ7Ñtaxes€assessed€against€it€by€the€Commissioner€of€Revenue€of€the€State€ofÏTennessee.€€The€trial€court€upheld€the€Commissionerððs€assessment.€€MCI€appealedÏand€has€raised€the€following€issues€for€our€consideration:€(1)€whether€the€trial€courtÏemployed€an€improper€standard€of€review€and€erroneously€allocated€the€burden€ofÏproof,€and€(2)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€interpreting€and€defining€the€termÏð ðconduit,ðð€as€that€term€is€used€within€the€Tennessee€sales€and€use€tax€statute.€€For€theÏreasons€stated€below,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€judgment.ÌÌà àThe€pertinent€facts€are€undisputed.€€Between€the€years€1986€and€1989,€MCIÏpurchased€and€installed€approximately€$13.5€million€of€fiber€optic€cable€and€fiber€opticÏground€(ð ðFOGðð)€wire€in€Tennessee€for€use€in€its€telecommunications€network.ÏœFollowing›€an€audit,€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Revenue€assessed€a€use€taxÏagainst€MCI€in€the€amount€of€$1,047,446.23,€plus€interest€and€applicable€penalties.€œIn›Ï1992,€MCI€filed€a€complaint€challenging€the€assessment€on€the€basis€that€the€fiberÏoptic€cable€and€FOG€wire€were€not€subject€to€Tennesseeððs€sales€and€use€tax€becauseÍsuch€items€were€not€ð ðtangible€personal€property,ðð€as€defined€by€T.C.A.€ðð€67„6„102.€ÌÌà àT.C.A.€ðð€67„6„201€imposes€a€sales€and€use€tax€on€ð ðtangible€personal€property.ðð€ÏTangible€personal€property€is€defined€as:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àððTangible€personal€propertyðð€means€and€includes€personalÏproperty€which€may€be€seen,€weighed,€measured,€felt,€orÏtouched,€or€is€in€any€other€manner€perceptible€to€the€sense.€ÏððTangible€personal€propertyðð€does€not€include€stocks,Ïbonds,€notes,€insurance€or€other€obligations€or€securities.€ÏððTangible€personal€propertyðð€does€not€include€utility€poles,Ïanchors,€guys€and€conduits,€and€such€facilities€shall€beÏdeemed€to€be€real€property€for€the€purposes€of€this€chapter.ÌÓÓœÌT.C.A.›€ðð€67„6„102(28)€(Supp.€1995).ÌÌà àMCI€contends€that€fiber€optic€cable€and€FOG€wire€are€ð ðconduitðð€within€theÏmeaning€of€the€above€provision€and,€therefore,€are€not€subject€to€Tennesseeððs€salesÏand€use€tax.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€upheld€the€Commissionerððs€assessment,€reasoning€that€MCI€hadÏfailed€to€prove€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence€that€the€Commissioner€was€in€error.€ÏThe€trial€court€stated€in€its€Memorandum€Opinion€as€follows:ÌÓÓò òà8 àà8 àó óA€taxpayer€challenging€a€tax€assessment€has€ððthe€heavyÏand€exacting€burden€of€proving€error€in€the€assessment.ðð€ÏòòTennessee€Farmersðð€Cooperative€v.€State€Commissioner€ofÏRevenueóó,€736€S.W.2d€87,€90€(Tenn.€1987).€€TheÏCommissioner€is€presumed€to€be€correct,€and€unless€errorÏis€shown€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence,€this€Court€willÏnot€disturb€the€Commissionerððs€assessment.€(citationsÏomitted)ÌÓ  Óà8 ààH@àà0 àà ààH@|| à*€*€*€*€*€*€ÌÓ  Óà8 àà8 àThe€plaintiff€has€not€carried€its€burden€of€proving€error€in€theÏCommissionerððs€assessment€by€clear€and€convincingÏevidence.Ìà@ à*€*€*€*€*€*Ìà8 àà8 àWhile€the€plaintiff€claims€its€definition€of€conduit€is€ððmoreÏappropriate,ðð€it€has€not€established€by€clear€and€convincingÏevidence€that€it€was€error€for€the€Commissioner€to€adopt€theÏdefinition€found€in€the€National€Electric€Safety€Code.€€TheÏplaintiff€has€therefore€not€œmet›€its€burden€of€proof,€and€thisÏCourt€will€affirm€the€tax€assessment€together€with€applicableÏinterest€and€œpenalties.›ÌÌÓÓà àÌà àMCIððs€first€contention€on€appeal€is€that€the€trial€court€employed€an€improperÏstandard€of€review€by€presuming€that€the€Commissionerððs€assessment€was€correct€andÏby€placing€the€burden€upon€MCI€to€prove€otherwise€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.ÏAccording€to€MCI,€only€factual€determinations€made€by€the€Commissioner€are€entitledÏto€a€presumption€of€correctness.€€MCI€argues€that€the€Commissionerððs€conclusion€thatÏfiber€optic€cable€and€FOG€wire€are€not€ð ðconduitðð€is€a€legal,€rather€than€a€factualÏdetermination.ÌÌà à€In€the€present€case,€our€task€is€to€construe€the€subject€statute€and€apply€the€lawÏto€the€undisputed€facts.€€We€thus€agree€with€MCIððs€assertion€that€our€review€of€the€trialÏcourtððs€judgment€is€òòde€novoóó.€€œòòTibbals€Flooring€Co.€V.€Huddlestonóó,›€891€S.W.2d€œ196,Ï198€(Tenn.€1994);›€òòBeare€Co.€v.€Tennessee€Dept.€Of€Revenueóó,€858€S.W.2d€906,€907Ï(Tenn.€1993).€€Even€assuming,€without€deciding,€that€the€trial€court€erred€regarding€theÏburden€of€proof€or€the€standard€of€review,€it€is€nevertheless€our€opinion€that€any€suchÏerror€is€harmless€because€we€will€conduct€a€òòde€novoóó€review€of€the€record€before€us.ÌÌà àIn€a€suit€by€a€taxpayer€claiming€an€exemption,€the€taxpayer€bears€the€burden€ofÏproving€entitlement€to€the€exemption.€€òòJersey€Miniere€Zinc€Co.€œv.›€Jackson,óó€774€S.W.2dÏ928,€930€(Tenn.€1989);€òòSilver€Fleet€Motor€Exp.€œv.›€Carsonóó,€219€S.W.2d€199,€200€(Tenn.Ï1949).€€In€the€recent€case€of€òòTibbals€Flooring€Co.€v.€Huddlestonóó,€891€S.W.2d€196Ï(Tenn.1994),€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€stated€the€applicable€rules€governing€theÏconstruction€and€review€of€claimed€exemptions€from€taxation:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àFirst,€our€role€in€construing€statutes€is€to€ascertain€and€giveÏeffect€to€the€legislative€intent€without€unduly€restricting€orÏexpanding€a€statuteððs€coverage€beyond€its€intended€scope.ÏòòState€v.€Sligeróó,€846€S.W.2d€262,€263€(Tenn.€1993).€€Next,Ïwe€must€determine€the€legislative€intent,€wheneverÏpossible,€from€the€plain€language€of€the€statute,€ððread€in€theÏcontext€of€the€entire€statute,€without€any€forced€or€subtleÏconstruction€which€would€extend€or€limit€its€meaning.ðð€ÏòòNational€Gas€Distributors,€Inc.€v.€Stateóó,€804€S.W.2d€66,€67Ï(Tenn.€1991).€Since€exemptions€in€tax€statutes€are€strictlyÏconstrued€against€the€taxpayer,€the€burden€is€on€theÏtaxpayer€to€establish€its€exemption.€€Every€presumption€isÏagainst€the€exemption€and€a€well„founded€doubt€is€fatal€toÏthe€claim.€€òòKingsport€Publishing€Corp.€v.€Olsenóó,€667€S.W.2dÏ745€(Tenn.€1984);€òòShearin€v.€Woodsóó,€597€S.W.2d€895Ï(Tenn.1980);€òòWoods€v.€General€Oils,€Inc.óó,€558€S.W.2d€433Ï(Tenn.€1977).€€Moreover,€when,€as€here,€there€is€no€conflictÏin€the€evidence€as€to€any€material€fact,€the€question€onÏappeal€is€one€of€law,€and€our€scope€of€review€is€òòde€novoóóÏwith€no€presumption€of€correctness€accompanying€theÏconclusions€of€law.€€òòUnion€Carbide€Corp.€v.€Huddlestonóó,Ï854€S.W.2d€87,€91€(Tenn.€1993).ÌœÌòòId.óó€at€198.Ì›ÌÓÓThe€Court€has€also€stated€that€ð ð[t]echnical€words€in€a€statute€are€to€be€taken€in€theirÏtechnical€sense€unless€it€is€clear€from€the€context€that€another€sense€was€intended.€ð ð€ÏòòCordis€Corp.€v.€Tayloróó,€762€S.W.2d€138,€139„40€(Tenn.€1988).ÌÌà àMCI€argues€that€both€fiber€optic€cable€and€FOG€wire€are€ð ðconduit,ðð€or,Ïalternatively,€that€at€least€the€outer€shell€of€the€FOG€wire€is€ð ðconduit.ðð€€Conversely,€theÏCommissionerððs€position€is€that€fiber€optic€cable€and€FOG€wire€are€cable,€rather€thanÏð ðconduit,ðð€and€are€not€exempt€from€sales€and€use€tax.ÌÌà àAt€the€outset€of€the€trial,€MCI€and€the€Commissioner€agreed€that€the€termÏð ðconduitðð€as€used€in€T.C.A.€ðð€67„6„102(28)€is€a€technical€term€and€should€be€definedÏaccording€to€the€telecommunications€industryððs€standards.€œHowever,›€the€partiesÏdisagreed€as€to€the€appropriate€definition€of€the€term€ð ðconduit.ðð€€ÌÌà àBilly€Stevenson,€an€expert€in€fiber€optic€cable,€FOG€wire,€andÏtelecommunications€testified€on€behalf€of€MCI.€€Stevenson€defined€ð ðconduitðð€as€aÏð ðhousing€that€contains€and€transmits€a€utility€from€Point€A€to€Point€B€without€impactingÏthe€environment€on€the€outside€of€that€particular€conduit€system.ðð€ÌÌà àDr.€Francis€Wells,€a€professor€of€electrical€engineering,€testified€on€behalf€of€theÏCommissioner.€€œWells›€based€his€definition€of€ð ðconduitðð€upon€the€definition€found€in€theÏNational€Electric€Safety€Code€(ð ðNESCðð),€which€establishes€guidelines€applicable€toÏthe€telecommunications€industry€and€the€electrical€industry.€€The€NESC€definesÏð ðconduitðð€as€ð ða€structure€containing€one€or€more€ducts.ðð€œ€›€A€ð ðductðð€under€the€NESC€is€ð ðaÏsingle€enclosed€raceway€for€conductors€or€cable.ðð€ÌÌà àFiber€optic€cables€are€bundles€of€hair„thin€glass€fibers€through€which€laser€lightÍbeams€carry€communications€and€other€data€at€high€speed.€€A€cladding€made€of€silicaÏsurrounds€the€bundled€optic€fibers€in€order€to€protect€the€fibers€from€the€œenvironment.€›ÏFOG€wire€is€more€advanced€œtha›œn›€fiber€optic€cable.€€FOG€is€a€composite€product€thatÏconsists€of€steel€strands,€which€conduct€electricity€and€prevent€heat€buildups,Ïsurrounding€an€aluminum€pipe,€which€conducts€electricity€and€protects€the€inner€fibersÏfrom€outer€forces.€€Inside€the€pipe,€tape€and€Kevlar€surround€the€unit€sheath,€whichÏcontains€the€fiber€optics.€ÌÌà àStevenson€testified€that€both€fiber€optic€cable€and€the€outer€portions€of€FOG€wireÏare€œð ðconduit,ðð›€as€that€term€is€used€within€the€telecommunications€industry.€œStevenson›Ïconceded,€however,€that€to€some€extent,€the€NESC€applies€to€the€telecommunicationsÏindustry.€ÌÌà àIn€support€of€MCIððs€position€that€the€outer€shell€of€the€FOG€wire€is€conduit,€PatÏRisen,€a€manager€in€the€optical€cable€business,€testified€that€it€is€possible€to€install€theÏouter€casing€of€the€FOG€wire€into€the€ground€and€to€subsequently€pull€fiber€opticsÏthrough€it.€œRisen›€also€stated,€however,€that€FOG€wire€is€manufactured€as€one€unit€andÏthat€installing€the€outer€casing€of€FOG€wire€into€the€ground€without€fiber€optics€insideÏhad€never€been€done€and€did€not€make€business€sense.€œSimilarly,›€Stevenson€testifiedÏthat€optic€fibers€are€not€placed€into€the€outer€casing€once€the€casing€has€been€laid€inÏthe€ground€because,€as€a€practical€matter,€it€is€not€economically€feasible.€ÌÌà àIn€contrast,€Wells€stated€unequivocally€that€neither€FOG€wire€nor€fiber€opticÍcable€œis›€œð ðconduit.ð𛀀œWells›€testified:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àQ:€Okay.€Can€you€describe€the€roll€[sic]€of€conduit€and€utilityÏpoles€in€a€distribution€network€for€a€telephone€company€orÏelectric€utility?Ìà8 àà8 àA:€Yes,€sir.Ìà8 àà8 àQ:€What€would€that€be?Ìà8 àà8 àA:€The€poles,€guide€wires,€conduits€are€pretty€muchÏpermanent€structures.€They€are€installed€essentially€byÏmechanics,€constructors.€€And€after€the€poles€and€guideÏwires€and€conduits€are€in€place,€then€the€next€crew€comesÏin€and€installs€cables€and€wires€either€in€the€ducts€or€on€theÏœpoles.›Ìà@ à*€*€*€*€*€*Ìà8 àà8 àQ:€What€is€the€relationship€of€cable€to€duct?€€How€do€thoseÏtwo€things€relate?Ìà8 àà8 àA:€Cable€is€greased€and€pulled€into€a€duct.Ìà8 àà8 àQ:€Are€those€things€distinguishable?€€Are€they€different?Ìà8 àà8 àA:€Oh,€yes.€€You€can€pull€a€cable€back€out€of€a€duct€if€itÏhasnððt€welded€itself€in€for€some€reason€to€pull€it€out€and€putÏit€in€another€one.€€You€can€replace€the€cables€in€a€duct,€butÏthe€duct€will€be€there.€Ìà@ à*€*€*€*€*€*€Ìà8 àà8 àQ:€What€is€your€opinion€as€to€whether€the€fog€wire€is€or€isÏnot€a€conduit?Ìà8 àà8 àA:€My€opinion€is€that€thereððs€no€conduit€here,€this€is€a€cable.€ÏWeððre€looking€at€a€sample€of€cable.€Ìà@ à*€*€*€*€*€*Ìà8 àà8 àQ:€With€respect€to€the€optical€fiber€thatððs€inside€the€fog€wire,Ïdo€you€have€an€opinion€as€to€whether€or€not€that€is€aÏconduit?Ìà8 àà8 àA:€Yes,€sir.Ìà8 àà8 àQ:€What€is€your€opinion?Ìà8 àà8 àA:€It€is€not€a€conduit.Ìà8 àà8 àQ:€What€is€the€basis€for€your€opinion?Ìà8 àà8 àA:€Well,€a€conduit€is€a€duct€that€you€put€things€in,€that€youÏinstall€cables€in.€€And€this€is€a€solid€material.€€It€transmitsÏlight,€but€it€functions€in€the€same€manner€that€a€conductorÏfunctions€[by€delivering]€electromagnetic€energy€from€oneÏpoint€to€œanother.›Ìà@ à*€*€*€*€*€*Ìà8 àà8 àA:€Thereððs€no€element€of€[FOG€wire]€which€is€a€duct€throughÏwhich€wires€or€cables€are€pulled.€€€Thereððs€no€element€of€itÏwhich€remains€when€the€cables€are€pulled€out.€€Thereððs€justÍno€permanent€structure€here,€its€all€just€one€œcable.›ÌÌÓÓà àÌà àThe€trial€court€held€that€the€term€ð ðconduitðð€should€be€defined€in€accordance€withÏthe€NESC€as€a€structure€containing€one€or€more€single€enclosed€raceways€forÏconductors€or€œcable.›€The€trial€court€explained€in€its€Memorandum€Opinion€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àWhile€the€plaintiff€emphasizes€many€differences€betweenÏfiber€optics€and€conventional€electrical€currents,€the€plaintiffÏhas€not€shown€why€the€Electrical€Safety€Code€definition€isÏobsolete€or€in€error.€€Nor€has€the€plaintiff€shown€how€theÏdifferences€between€electrical€wires€and€fiber€optic€cableÏtransform€fiber€optic€cable€into€ð ðconduit.ðð€€While€the€use€ofÏfused€silica€within€the€fiber€optic€wire€is€a€new€innovation,Ïthe€use€of€insulation€to€protect€impulses€traveling€alongÏcable€is€a€time„tested€technology.€€The€fact€that€this€cableÏcarries€light€impulses€along€glass€rather€than€electricalÏcurrents€along€wire€does€not€automatically€transform€theÏcable€into€ð ðconduit.ðð€€(TR€47)Ì̛̜ÌÓÓà àThe€trial€court€further€held€that€the€outer€shell€of€the€FOG€wire€was€not€conduitÏbecause€the€evidence€presented€at€trial€indicated€that€the€optical€fibers€and€theÏsurrounding€material€were€considered€by€the€industry€to€constitute€one€unit€in€whichÏthe€fiber€optics€are€permanently€enclosed€in€the€outer€œcasing.›ÌÌà àAfter€a€thorough€examination€of€the€record,€we€conclude€that€MCI€has€not€met€itsÏburden€of€proving€its€entitlement€to€an€exemption.€€Although€MCI€has€persuasivelyÏadvanced€a€novel€and€cogent€argument€in€support€of€its€position,€exemptions€are€to€beÏstrictly€construed€against€the€taxpayer€and€ð ðany€well„founded€doubt€is€fatal€to€theÏclaim.ðð€€òòTibbalsóó,€891€S.W.2d€œat€198.›€€€€The€conflicting€testimony€from€the€partiesððÍwitnesses€creates€a€ð ðwell„founded€doubtðð€as€to€whether€fiber€optic€cable€and€FOG€wireÏconstitute€ð ðconduit.ðð€€It€is€our€opinion€that€to€construe€ð ðconduitðð€as€including€fiber€opticÏcable€or€FOG€wire€would€afford€the€term€a€forced€construction€that€would€extend€itsÏmeaning€beyond€that€which€was€intended€by€the€legislature.€€òòTibbalsóó,€891€S.W.2d€atÏ198.€€This€we€cannot€do€in€light€of€the€fact€that€exemptions€must€be€strictly€construedÏagainst€the€taxpayer.€€òòId.óó€€We€find€no€error€in€employing€the€definition€of€ð ðconduitððÏfound€in€the€NESC€œbecause€witnesses€for›€both€parties€conceded€that€œat€least€to€someÏextent€the›€NESC€establishes€guidelines€for€the€telecommunications€œindustry.›€€œWe€also›Ïagree€with€the€trial€court€that€the€protective€shell€of€the€FOG€wire€is€not€exempt€fromÏtaxation.€€The€record€reflects€that€according€to€industry€standards,€the€optical€fibers€andÏsurrounding€material€are€considered€to€be€a€single€unit.€€ÌÌà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Costs€on€appeal€areÏtaxed€to€appellant.à àœÌÌÓÓÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïóóà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌCRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌFARMER,€J.›ÌÌÌà à