First Banc Group of Ohio, Inc. v. Lindley

Appellant contends that amendments to personal property tax returns are limited to correcting “items, numbers and computations [as] made on the [original] return.” This court has not held such a restrictive view of the function of an amended return. See Procter & Gamble Co. v. Evatt (1943), 142 Ohio St. 373. Accord Seiberling Rubber Co. v. Evatt (1944), 43 Ohio Law Abs. 500; Welsh v. Kosydar (1973), 37 Ohio App. 2d 115.

Appellant also argues that appellee has failed to comply with the requirements of R. C. 5711.141 and the regulation promulgated thereunder.2

*83In resolving this issue, the Board…