The respondent, State Tax Assessor, appeals from the judgment of the Superior Court (Cumberland County, Alexander, J.) reversing the final sales tax assessment imposed by the Assessor on the petitioner, Jackson Advertising Corporation (Jackson). The Assessor contends that the Superior Court erred as a matter of law in determining that Jackson had met its burden of proving that the transactions were nontaxable sales of services. We agree and vacate the judgment of the Superior Court.
As a result of its 1985 audit of Jackson, the State Tax Assessor assessed approximately $20,000 in sales tax, interest and penalties on products Jackson created for its clients between 1982 and 1985. In response to Jackson’s petition for reconsideration, the Assessor affirmed its initial assessment. Jackson filed a petition for review in the Superior Court pursuant to 36 M.R.S.A. § 151 (Supp.1987) and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 M.R.S.A. §§ 11001-11008 (1979 & Pamph.1987). In accordance with section 151, the Superior Court conducted a de novo hearing.1
Gregory Jackson, the owner of Jackson, was the only witness to testify before the Superior Court. He described his company as a “full-service” advertising agency, performing a range of services for its clients. The agency researches and identifies target markets, plans marketing strategy, develops creative concepts for individual ad*1366vertisements and lines of products, and performs much of the creative and technical work required to produce radio, television and print advertisements.
Because of the large number and variety of jobs covered by the assessment, the parties stipulated, for the purposes of review, that three projects were representative of both the work performed by Jackson and the projects audited by the Assessor. A videotaped television commercial produced for Gifford’s Famous Ice Cream, Inc. represented advertisements created for television and radio (broadcast media). A layout of sketches and copy, reproduced by a printer to provide Eastland Shoe Company with 200 “cooperative advertising kits,” represented Jackson’s work in print advertising. To represent Jackson’s brochure and catalogue work, the parties chose a pamphlet it created to promote “Lakeside at Pleasant Mountain,” a condominium project planned by Northland of Maine. The parties further stipulated that the sales value of each advertising category was as follows: broadcast, 31%; print, 34%; brochures, catalogues and miscellaneous, 35%. Gregory Jackson testified as to the planning, aesthetic judgment, creative and technical skills, and materials required for each representative job.
Relying on language set forth in Community Telecasting Service v. Johnson, 220 A.2d 500, 503 (Me.1966), and restated in Measurex Systems, Inc. v. State Tax Assessor, 490 A.2d 1192, 1195-96 (Me.1985), the Superior Court determined “that the advertising products here at issue, as was the custom software in Measurex, are basically sales of creative and professional advertising services, not products.” The Assessor appeals from that judgment.
I.
Initially we note that the Superior Court judgment is flawed by a misconception of the procedural posture of the case. In his opinion, the judge states that “the court’s hearing and determination is de novo.” (emphasis added). Consistent with that pronouncement, the judge proceeded to find the facts and apply the law to those facts. Although 36 M.R.S.A. § 151 permits a de novo hearing for the purpose of providing a substituted record for judicial review, a de novo determination, such as that undertaken by the judge in this case, is not authorized. Even with a de novo hearing under section 151, judicial review is confined to a “complete review of questions of law and to limited review of questions of fact only to test the reasonableness of the conclusions reached.” Frank v. Assessors of Skowhegan, 329 A.2d 167, 170 (Me.1974). As we explained in Skowhegan, the scope of judicial review is not broadened by the absence of a record of the proceedings before the Assessor, nor is it broadened by the preparation of a substituted record in the Superior Court:
Many of [the assessors’] decisions must of necessity be made without a formal hearing of which a complete record is made to indicate the factual basis for the judgment.
An appeal from a decision of tax assessors therefore, requires the Court to make its own independent inquiry into all relevant and material facts bearing on the ultimate issue of the fairness and rationality of the assessment.
In the absence of a record, the Court can properly act on the assumption that such evidence as it adduces on review was, in fact, the basis upon which the assessors reached their conclusions ... or even if it appears such evidence was not before the assessors, if the evidence before the Court does not compel the conclusion that the assessors’ judgment was irrational, their judgment should not be disturbed.
Id. (citations omitted). See also Lovely v. Zoning Board of Appeals of City of Presque Isle, 259 A.2d 666, 668 (Me.1969) {de novo proceeding in the Superior Court is still in the nature of appellate review; proper test on appeal is whether zoning board’s decision was unlawful, arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable).
The Superior Court erred as a matter of law when it substituted its judgment for that of the State Tax Assessor. We examine the record developed before the Superi- *1367or Court, in accordance with the recognized limits of judicial review, to determine if the State Tax Assessor, applying the relevant law, could have rationally concluded2 that Jackson failed to prove that the transactions were not taxable sales of tangible personal property.3
II.
The State of Maine imposes sales tax at the rate of 5% on retail sales of tangible personal property. 36 M.R.S.A. § 1811 (1978).4 The tax base is the sale price and includes the cost of labor and services that are a part of the sale. 36 M.R.S.A. § 1752(14) (1978).5 As a general rule, sales of services alone are not taxed.6 The statute provides little explicit guidance as to the tax treatment of the mixture of services and property that constitutes the work product of advertising agencies such as Jackson. Cf. 36 M.R.S.A. § 1752(17-A) (Supp.1987) (defining taxable services). The State Tax Assessor, however, has declared such transactions taxable since at least 1964. Bulletin Number 38 states that advertising agencies are sellers of tangible personal property and that the tax “applies to the entire amount charged to clients for items of tangible personal property such as drawings, paintings, designs, photographs, lettering, assemblies, and printed matter.” (emphasis supplied).7 Jackson’s work clearly results in products that can be “seen ... touched ... [and] perceived by the senses” — the video of Gifford’s television commercial, the Eastland Shoe layout and the Northland brochure. The question is whether Jackson has proved that the sale of those items of tangible personal property are merely incidental to a nontaxable sale of services.
In two prior cases we have reviewed the Assessor’s determination that similar transactions involved the sale of tangible personal property rather than services. Contrary to the contentions of the parties and the assumption of the Superior Court, however, we have not identified any discrete legal criteria for distinguishing a sale of services from a sale of personal property.
Community Telecasting Service v. Johnson, 220 A.2d 500 (Me.1966) was reported directly to this Court on a statement of facts and deposition submitted in lieu of a substituted record in the Superior Court. The case involved advertising art work and slides indistinguishable from the videotapes *1368involved in the present case. In discussing the Assessor’s decision that the sale was one of tangible personal property we simply noted that under case law elsewhere “certain factual features assume importance.” Id. at 503. We identified certain features relied on by other courts as follows:
It has been held that where the creation of property to be transferred requires high skill and the materials involved are of relatively little value and the principal value of the finished product lies in the services to be rendered, and the product is of little value to anyone other than the buyer, the transaction may be deemed a sale of service rather than goods. The relative dollar value of the service as against that of the product, sometimes expressed in percentages, has been held significant. J.A. Burgess Co. et al. v. Ames (1935) 359 Ill. 427, 194 N.E. 565 (blue printing, photography); Mahon v. Nudelman (1941) 377 Ill. 331, 36 N.E.2d 550 (fur repair); Berry-Kofron Dental Laboratory Co. v. Smith (1940) 345 Mo. 922, 137 S.W.2d 452 (dentures, etc., for dentists); and Washington Printing & Binding Co. v. State (1937) 192 Wash. 448, 73 P.2d 1326 (printing, materials 14% of total charge) all non-taxable.
Id. We made the further observation, however, that:
The fact that property the subject of a sale is custom made and that labor is the principal cost factor does not establish the contract as one for rendition of services rather than sale. Bigsby v. Johnson (Cal.1940) 99 P.2d 268 (printer’s mats and composition); Voss v. Gray (1941) 70 N.D. 727, 298 N.W. 1 (photographs); and Warshawsky & Co. v. Department of Finance (1941) 377 Ill. 165, 36 N.E.2d 233 (sale of rebuilt motors); all taxable.
Id. at 503. Ultimately, we concluded that “[t]he facts of the present case do not yield the criteria discussed above and the transaction is not established as a ‘service’ transaction.” Id. Effectively this Court held only that the taxpayer had failed to demonstrate the irrationality of the Assessor’s decision. It is readily apparent that this Court did not adopt the list of “factual features” as a comprehensive statement of the legal criteria for distinguishing between sales of services and personal property. Indeed, the result in Community Telecasting confounds any attempt to apply such criteria. Accordingly, Jackson takes nothing from its claim that the Assessor’s decision contravenes certain of the criteria set forth in Community Telecasting.
Finally, the Superior Court predicated a claim of legal error on a claimed inconsistency between the Assessor’s decision in this case and our opinion in Measurex Systems, Inc. v. State Tax Assessor, 490 A.2d 1192 (Me.1985). The Superior Court drew an analogy between the advertising products in this case and the custom computer systems involved in Measurex. It is important to note, that this Court did not hold in Measurex that the sale of custom software constituted a sale of services, either as a matter of law or as a matter of fact. The determination concerning the taxability of sales of custom software in that case was made by the Superior Court at an intermediate stage in the appeal and that ruling was not the subject of a cross-appeal by the Assessor. The only issue before this Court in Measurex was the taxable status of the canned software. Any discussion in our opinion concerning custom software served only to illustrate the continuing rationality of the Assessor's tax treatment of canned software in the face of the treatment mandated for the custom software by the unchallenged order of the Superior Court. Thus, our holding in Measurex is confined to the conclusion that the taxpayer “failed to meet its burden of proving that the transactions [concerning canned software] were not taxable. Id. at 1193.
Finding no legal error, and concluding that Jackson has failed to demonstrate that the decision of the Assessor is irrational, arbitrary, capricious or characterized by an abuse of discretion, we must uphold the decision of the Assessor. On this record we cannot state that the Assessor was compelled to find the principal value of the advertising products related to a sale of *1369services. See Community Telecasting Service v. Johnson, 220 A.2d at 503.
The entry is:
Judgment of the Superior Court vacated. Remanded with instructions to affirm the decision of the State Tax Assessor.
McKUSICK, C.J., and CLIFFORD and HORNBY, JJ., concurring.. Section 151 provides, in relevant part:
Any person who is entitled by law to receive notice of a determination of the State Tax Assessor and who is aggrieved by that determination may petition ... for reconsideration by the [Assessor] ....
The State Tax Assessor's decision on reconsideration constitutes final agency action which is subject to review by the Superior Court in accordance with the Maine Administrative Procedure Act, except that the absence of a record shall be resolved exclusively by a hearing de novo on review.
. 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007(4)(C) (1979) states in pertinent part this Court may:
C. Reverse or modify the decision if the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions or decisions are:
(4) Unsupported by substantial evidence on the whole record; or
(5) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion.
. 36 M.R.S.A. § 1763 (1978) states:
The burden of proving that a transaction was not taxable shall be upon the person charged with tax liability.
. 36 M.R.S.A. § 1752(17) (1978) provides as follows:
“Tangible personal property" means personal property which may be seen, weighed, measured, felt, touched or in any other manner perceived by the senses, but shall not include rights and credits, insurance policies, bills of exchange, stocks and bonds and similar evidences of indebtedness or ownership.
. Section 1752(14) provided, in relevant part:
"Sale price” means the total amount of the sale ... of a retail sale, including any services that are a part of such sale ... without any deduction therefrom on account of the cost of the property sold, the cost of the materials used, labor or service cost ... or any other expenses whatsoever.
Section 1752(14) was repealed and replaced by P.L.1987, ch. 497, § 24. See 36 M.R.S.A. § 1752(14)(A) (Supp.1987).
. 36 M.R.S.A. § 1752(17-A) (Supp.1987) provides specific exceptions to the general rule for rental of living quarters; rental of automobiles (for less than one year); telephone or telegraph service; extended cable television service; fabrication services; and custom computer programming.
. The State Tax Assessor does make an exception for so-called preliminary art — roughs, visualizations, comprehensives or layouts prepared for clients before a contract is entered or before approval is given for finished art — provided that a separate charge is made and that the preliminary art does not become physically incorporated into the finished art. No contention is made in this case, however, that any of the items qualify as preliminary art.