contended on appeal in the Court of Civil Appeals that Omni owed taxes on certain transactions that involved the sale of photographs. Omni argued, however, that the transfer, of photographs to its clients was “incidental” to the provision of certain services. Specifically, some transfers of tangible personal property are considered “incidental” to the provision of services and are not taxed. Such “incidental transfers” occur when the transfer of property is merely an incidental part of services provided by a “learned professional,” such as when a dentist makes dentures for a patient or when an attorney drafts a will or deed. This “incidental-transfer” exception has been applied in the realm of advertising and portrait painting. State v. Harrison, 386 So.2d 460 (Ala.Civ.App.1980) (<HOLDING>), and State Department of Revenue v.
holding that a challenge to part b determinations in an order involving both part a and part b must begin in district court holding that the preparation of catalogs and brochures as part of an advertising service was incidental holding that a municipal transit vehicle is not a public forum for first amendment purposes because the city is engaged in commerce and the advertising space in question although incidental to the provision of public transportation is part of a commercial venture holding that an attempted service on the partys counsel was insufficient without proof of the counsels actual authority to receive service holding that service is not avoided by service on a partys attorney as service on an attorney is ineffective unless he has been authorized to accept such service