Legal Opinion

American Handling Equipment Co. v. Kosydar

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 23, 1975No. 74-545PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Per curiam

Appellant contends that the Tax Commissioner’s letter, given before an audit and without specification of claimed deficiencies, is not proper notice to start the running of the 60-day period within R. C. 5739.03. That section, in pertinent part, provides:

“If any sale is claimed to be exempt * * * the consumer must furnish to the vendor, and the vendor must obtain from the consumer, a certificate specifying the reason that the sale is not legally subject to the tax. * * * If no certificate is furnished or obtained within the period for filing *152the return for the period in which such sale is…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Canton Malleable Iron Co. v. PorterfieldOhio Supreme Court · 1972
  2. Union Metal Mfg. Co. v. KosydarOhio Supreme Court · 1974
  3. Interstate Motor Freight System v. DonahueOhio Supreme Court · 1966

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc. v. KinneyOhio Supreme Court · 1984
  2. Frankelite Co. v. LindleyOhio Supreme Court · 1986
  3. Ormet Corp. v. LindleyOhio Supreme Court · 1982
  4. Canton Structural Steel Co. v. LindleyOhio Supreme Court · 1982
  5. Ford Motor Co. v. LimbachOhio Supreme Court · 1987

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API