American National Can Co. v. Tracy

I concur in the court’s conclusion that the water cooling system is exempt from taxation. I dissent to the conclusion that the machine hoppers, case erectors, and electrical transformer are not similarly exempt.

I

The majority relies upon an erroneous interpretation of Ball Corp. v. Limbach (1992), 62 Ohio St.3d 474, 584 N.E.2d 679, to reach the conclusion that the machine hoppers do not qualify for the adjunct exemption. In fact, the taxability of machine hoppers was not before this court in Ball.

*154In Ball, the Board of Tax Appeals (“BTA”) determined that manufacturing began at the co-extrusion…