Kroger Co. v. Limbach
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
For the reasons which follow, we affirm the decision in part and reverse in part.
I
In essence, the Tax Commissioner’s principal argument is that exception from taxation is based upon the specific requirements of R.C. 5739.02 (B)(15) and is available only for purchases of packages or equipment for use in packing tangible personal property produced for sale and used directly in inserting such product into the package. We disagree.
R.C. 5739.02 provides in part as follows:
1 ‘(B) The tax does not apply to the following:
a* * *
“(15) Sales to persons engaged in any of the activities mentioned in…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Hawthorn Mellody, Inc. v. LindleyOhio Supreme Court · 1981
- Citizens Financial Corp. v. PorterfieldOhio Supreme Court · 1971
- Hatchadorian v. LindleyOhio Supreme Court · 1986
3Cited by3 opinions
- Am. Natl. Can Co. v. TracyOhio Supreme Court · 1995
- Union Carbide Corp. v. LimbachOhio Supreme Court · 1992
- American National Can Co. v. TracyOhio Supreme Court · 1995