Legal Opinion
General Motors Corp. v. Limbach
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided August 11, 1993No. 92-1407PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Per curiam
GM admits that it owes additional tax due to the federal adjustments and that R.C. 5733.12 bars refund since its claim is not timely. Moreover, the commissioner admits, without admitting that the instant interest income is not taxable, that interest from federal obligations is not taxable.
GM, however, argues, in Proposition of Law No. 1, that R.C. 5733.031(C) requires it to file complete amended returns, so that it may offset the added tax due to the federal adjustments with the amount it should not have paid had it correctly filed its initial returns.
R.C. 5733.031(C) states:
“If any of the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Block v. North Dakota Ex Rel. Board of University & School LandsSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- United States v. DalmSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Stone v. WhiteSupreme Court of the United States · 1937
- Coca-Cola Bottling Corp. v. LindleyOhio Supreme Court · 1978
- McLean Trucking Co. v. LindleyOhio Supreme Court · 1982
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Crown Communication, Inc. v. TestaOhio Supreme Court · 2013
- HealthSouth Corp. v. LevinOhio Supreme Court · 2009
- Fadner v. Commissioner of Revenue ServicesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2007
- Vivigen, Inc. v. MinznerNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1994
- Big Blue Express v. Nebraska Dept. of Rev.Nebraska Supreme Court · 2021
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.