Legal Opinion · Dissent

Dresser Industries, Inc. v. Lindley

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 11, 1984No. 83-1395Published

1DissentWilliam B. Brown, J.

Because I conclude that the Board of Tax Appeals decision in this case was unreasonable and unlawful, I respectfully dissent. Under the facts of the present case, it is my view that Dresser’s primary purpose in acquiring the property in question was to complete its research and development in order to fulfill its contractual obligations with the government and not to resell that property.

The majority opinion sets forth the appropriate test to be employed. The primary use or purpose test is applicable in all cases where the taxpayer’s purpose is unclear because dual uses exist. United States…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. United States Shoe Corp. v. KosydarOhio Supreme Court · 1975
  2. Fliteways, Inc. v. LindleyOhio Supreme Court · 1981
  3. Jim White Chevrolet Co. v. PorterfieldOhio Supreme Court · 1970

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

Powered by the Exa API