Legal Opinion
Zalud Oldsmobile Pontiac, Inc. v. Tracy
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided November 6, 1996No. Nos. 95-1447 and 95-1690PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Per curiam
Appellants argue that R.C. 5733.041 allows them to deduct these depreciation add-back amounts from their net income in the disputed tax years. They also argue, alternatively, that denying them the deductions violates the federal Equal Protection Clause and Ohio’s Uniformity Clause. We disagree and affirm the BTA’s decisions.
“R.C. 5733.01 imposes a tax on corporations for the privilege of exercising their franchise in Ohio. This tax is computed on the value of the taxpayer’s issued and outstanding shares of stock, calculated on either the net worth or net income basis, whichever produces the…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
- McGowan v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
- City of New Orleans v. DukesSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Nordlinger v. HahnSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- F. S. Royster Guano Co. v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Marshall v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2012
- State v. Leftridge, Unpublished Decision (4-1-1999)Ohio Court of Appeals · 1999
- State v. Tuttle, Unpublished Decision (2-25-1999)Ohio Court of Appeals · 1999
- Zalud Oldsmobile Pontiac, Inc. v. TracyOhio Supreme Court · 1996