Maumee Valley Broadcasting Ass'n v. Porterfield
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtKerNs, J.
As a whole, the evidence presented to the Board of Tax Appeals may be characterized as candid and comprehensive. It lays open the internal operation of the corporation, and significantly, the record reflects no evidence, or any suggestion, that the religious operation of the appellee was prompted by a profit motive or initiated for material gain.
The record is, of course, subject to the usual guidelines established in tax cases, one of which provides that statutes relating to an exemption from taxation must be strictly construed. National Tube Co. v. Glander (1952), 157 Ohio St. 407. However,…
2Cited by14 opinions
- Oral Roberts University v. Oklahoma Tax CommissionSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1985
- State v. VogenthalerNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1976
- Young Life Campaign v. PatinoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1981
- Agape Church, Inc. v. Pulaski CountySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1991
- Akron Golf Charities, Inc. v. LimbachOhio Supreme Court · 1987
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.