Legal Opinion

Mancino v. Tracy

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 25, 1997No. Nos. 96-2165 and 96-2176PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

The Mancinos argue that R.C. 5747.13 bars the commissioner from collecting the deficiency amounts because he sought the amounts more than four years after the Mancinos had timely filed their returns. The commissioner replies that R.C. 5747.13 plays no role in these cases because this statute bars assessments. He, instead, claims he did not assess the Mancinos; he requested that they pay what would be due in amended returns based on the federal adjustments to be filed under R.C. 5747.10. We agree with the commissioner and affirm the board’s decisions.

Former R.C. 5747.10 stated:

“If any of the…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Gibson v. LimbachOhio Court of Appeals · 1991

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Gibson v. LevinOhio Supreme Court · 2008
  2. Mancino v. TracyOhio Supreme Court · 1997

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

Powered by the Exa API