*300 {¶ 1} We decide this case as a companion case to Crutchfield Corp. v. Testa, — Ohio St.3d -, 2016-Ohio-7760, — N.E.3d -, with which this case was consolidated for purposes of oral argument. Appellant and cross-appellee, Mason Companies, Inc., is based in Wisconsin, and it appeals from the imposition of Ohio’s commercial-activity tax (“CAT”) on revenue it has earned from its sales of goods through orders received via telephone, mail, and the Internet. Like Crutchfield, Mason Companies contests its CAT assessments because it operates outside Ohio, employs no personnel in Ohio, and maintains no facilities in Ohio.

{¶ 2} The 24 assessments at issue here cover the period from July 1, 2005, through September 30, 2011. In determining that our holding in Crutchfield requires us to affirm these assessments, we rely on Mason Companies’ decision to restrict its protest to the imposition of the tax, while not contesting the amounts of tax assessed, to conclude that Mason Companies satisfied the $500,000-sales-receipts threshold, triggering its CAT liability during that period. See R.C. 5751.01(H)(3) and (I)(3). Mason Companies, however, asserts that Ohio’s CAT violates the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution and that therefore Ohio had no authority to tax any of those receipts.

{¶ 3} Just as in Crutchfield, we first confront a cross-appeal by the tax commissioner concerning whether Mason Companies properly raised and preserved its constitutional challenge. The circumstances of the present case being no different from those in Crutchfield, we resolve the cross-appeal against the tax commissioner’s position on the authority of Crutchfield. Similarly, we rely on Crutchfield to reject Mason Companies’ contentions that the CAT statutes should be construed to preclude the assessments at issue in this appeal.

{¶ 4} In Crutchfield, we held that under the Commerce Clause, the physical presence of an interstate business within Ohio was not a necessary condition for imposing the obligations of the CAT law, given that the $500,000-sales-receipts threshold adequately assured that the taxpayer’s nexus with Ohio was substantial pursuant to R.C. 5751.01(H)(3) and (I)(3). Crutchfield, — Ohio St.3d ——, 2016-Ohio-7760, — N.E.3d -, ¶ 3, 5. Applying that holding here resolves Mason Companies’ constitutional challenge under the Commerce Clause. It also makes unnecessary consideration whether Mason Companies’ Internet contacts with its Ohio customers constituted a physical presence for Commerce Clause purposes.

{¶ 5} For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the BTA and uphold the CAT assessments against Mason Companies.

Decision affirmed.