Legal Opinion
A. Schulman, Inc. v. Levin
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided October 25, 2007No. 2006-1944PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtLundberg Stratton, J.
{¶ 1} The Board of Tax Appeals (“BTA”) concluded in the proceedings below that certain devices used by an Akron manufacturer should be exempt from Ohio’s personal property tax. For the reasons that follow, we reverse that decision.
Facts
{¶ 2} Appellee, A. Schulman, Inc., produces plastic resins and compounds, which it then sells to manufacturers of consumer, industrial, automotive, and packaging products. The company is headquartered in Akron, Ohio, with manufacturing facilities and distribution centers located in Ohio and elsewhere.
{¶ 3} After A. Schulman paid personal property taxes for tax…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Board of Education v. ZainoOhio Supreme Court · 2001
- American National Can Co. v. TracyOhio Supreme Court · 1995
- Columbus City School District Board of Education v. ZainoOhio Supreme Court · 2001
- Standards Testing Laboratories, Inc. v. ZainoOhio Supreme Court · 2003
- Youngstown Metropolitan Housing Authority v. EvattOhio Supreme Court · 1944
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- HealthSouth Corp. v. TestaOhio Supreme Court · 2012
- Anderson/Maltbie Partnership v. LevinOhio Supreme Court · 2010
- Cincinnati Golf Management, Inc. v. TestaOhio Supreme Court · 2012
- Cannata v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2016
- Bay Mechanical & Electrical Corp. v. TestaOhio Supreme Court · 2012
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.