Jeep Corp. v. Limbach
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
R.C. 5739.01(E)(2) excepts from the sales tax purchases in which the purpose of the consumer is “* * * to use or consume the thing transferred directly in the production of tangible personal property * * * for sale by manufacturing [or] processing * * R.C. 5741.02(C)(2) provides the same exemption from the use tax.
The commissioner argues that the BTA did not address the fuel feedback equipment in its decision, and she is unsure that the BTA excepted it. Reading the BTA decision as a whole, we conclude that the BTA did exempt the fuel feedback equipment. Moreover, the commissioner maintains…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Hawthorn Mellody, Inc. v. LindleyOhio Supreme Court · 1981
- Ace Steel Baling, Inc. v. PorterfieldOhio Supreme Court · 1969
- Canton Malleable Iron Co. v. PorterfieldOhio Supreme Court · 1972
- Southwestern Portland Cement Co. v. LindleyOhio Supreme Court · 1981
- United States Shoe Corp. v. KosydarOhio Supreme Court · 1975
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- AT&T Technologies, Inc. v. LimbachOhio Supreme Court · 1994
- Roxane Laboratories, Inc. v. TracyOhio Supreme Court · 1996
- AT&T Technologies, Inc. v. LimbachOhio Supreme Court · 1994
- Roxane Laboratories, Inc. v. TracyOhio Supreme Court · 1996