Legal Opinion

Hatchadorian v. Lindley

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided January 15, 1986No. Nos. 85-237, 85-370, 85-371 and 85-373PublishedCited by 38 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWright, J.

I

We first consider whether the commissioner improperly excluded certain items of the taxpayer’s personal property in the valuation certificates for the 1981 and 1982 tax return years. The BTA rejected the auditor’s challenge to the commissioner’s exclusion of the “construction work in progress” account and that portion of the taxpayer’s “materials and supplies” account which includes engineering and contractual services. The record supports, and we agree with, the factual and legal findings of both the commissioner and the BTA that this property was not “used in business” within the meaning…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Cardinal Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Cuyahoga County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1975
  2. Board of Revision v. FodorOhio Supreme Court · 1968
  3. American Steel & Wire Co. of New Jersey v. Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1942
  4. PPG Industries, Inc. v. KosydarOhio Supreme Court · 1981
  5. Syro Steel Co. v. KosydarOhio Supreme Court · 1973

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by38 opinions

  1. Alliance Towers, Ltd. v. Stark County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  2. United Telephone Co. v. LimbachOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  3. American Fiber Systems, Inc. v. LevinOhio Supreme Court · 2010
  4. Newman v. LevinOhio Supreme Court · 2008
  5. United Tel. Co. of Ohio v. LimbachOhio Supreme Court · 1994

33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API