NLO, Inc. v. Limbach
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
In Proposition of Law No. 1, NLO argues that it was not the consumer in these transactions because it merely received physical possession of the items, while DOE paid for them and received title. The commissioner responds that receipt of possession is enough if another pays the consideration for the item.
A “sale,” on which the tax is levied (R.C. 5739.02), includes “[a]ll transactions by which title or possession, or both, of tangible personal property, is or is to be transferred, or a license to use or consume tangible personal property is or is to be granted.” R.C. 5739.01(B)(1). However,…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- General Motors Corp. v. KosydarOhio Supreme Court · 1974
- Ormet Corp. v. LindleyOhio Supreme Court · 1982
- Dresser Industries, Inc. v. LindleyOhio Supreme Court · 1984
- Penton Publishing Co. v. KosydarOhio Supreme Court · 1976
- Switzer v. KosydarOhio Supreme Court · 1973
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- HealthSouth Corp. v. LevinOhio Supreme Court · 2009
- New York Frozen Foods, Inc. v. Bedford Hts. Income Tax Bd. of Rev. (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2016
- Standards Testing Laboratories, Inc. v. ZainoOhio Supreme Court · 2003
- Crutchfield Corp. v. Testa (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2016
- Agley v. TracyOhio Supreme Court · 1999
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.