Buckeye International, Inc. v. Limbach
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
Two issues are presented for review. We address them separately.
I
The Allocation Issue
Buckeye argues that APB 16 does not fairly value its property and that the property should be valued based on its depreciated book value. The commissioner responds that her valuation comports with case law.
According to Tele-Media Co. of Addil v. Lindley (1982), 70 Ohio St.2d 284, 24 O.O.3d 367, 436 N.E.2d 1362, syllabus:
“The best evidence of the ‘true value in money’ of tangible personal property is the proper allocation of the purchase price of an actual, recent sale of the property in an arm’s-length…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Allegheny Pittsburgh Coal Co. v. Commission of Webster Cty.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Conalco, Inc. v. Monroe County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1977
- Osborne Bros. Welding Supply, Inc. v. LimbachOhio Supreme Court · 1988
- Abex Corp. v. KosydarOhio Supreme Court · 1973
- Bank One Dayton, N.A. v. LimbachOhio Supreme Court · 1990
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. LimbachOhio Supreme Court · 1994
- Dupee v. TracyOhio Supreme Court · 1999
- T. Ryan Legg Irrevocable Trust v. Testa (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2016
- Shiloh Automotive, Inc. v. LevinOhio Supreme Court · 2008
- Cousino Construction Co. v. WilkinsOhio Supreme Court · 2006
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.