Legal Opinion

General Motors Corp. v. Limbach

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 6, 1988No. 87-283PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Per curiam

I

Conveying Equipment

Appellant-taxpayer argues that the conveying equipment is part of a system that produces a saleable product. It argues that the equipment is excepted from sales and use taxes under R.C. 5739.01(E)(2) or 5739.02(B)(16).

R.C. 5739.02 taxes all retail sales made in Ohio.1 R.C. 5739.01(E)(2) excepts sales where the consumer’s purpose is “* * * to use or consume the thing transferred directly in the production of tangible personal property * * * for sale by manufacturing, [or] processing * *

During the audit period, “manufacturing” or “processing” was defined in R.C. 5739.01(S)…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. White Motor Corp. v. KosydarOhio Supreme Court · 1977
  2. Babcock & Wilcox. Co. v. KosydarOhio Supreme Court · 1976
  3. Ford Motor Co. v. LimbachOhio Supreme Court · 1987
  4. General Motors Corp. v. LindleyOhio Supreme Court · 1987
  5. McWood Corp. v. PorterfieldOhio Supreme Court · 1968

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. General Motors Corp. v. LimbachOhio Supreme Court · 1989

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

Powered by the Exa API