General Motors Corp. v. Kosydar
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtCorrigan, J.
Appellant does not dispute the Tax Commissioner’s determination that appellant was the “consumer” of the assessed tooling, as defined in R. C. 5739.01 (D), but propounds three propositions of law, each of which, if accepted by this court, would except appellant from the sales and use taxes imposed.
I
Appellant’s first proposition of law is that the exceptions to the statutory definition of “retail sale,” provided by R. G. 5739.01(E), are predicated upon the purpose of the consumer that the item be used in an excepted manner. Appellant argues that the use of the tooling by an outside…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Fuchs v. United Motor Stage Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1939
- Celina Mutual Ins. v. BowersOhio Supreme Court · 1965
- Howell Air, Inc. v. PorterfieldOhio Supreme Court · 1970
- Foley Lumber Industries, Inc. v. Buckeye Cellulose CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1961
- Laveson v. Warner Mfg. Corp.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1953
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Standards Testing Laboratories, Inc. v. ZainoOhio Supreme Court · 2003
- Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. v. LindleyOhio Supreme Court · 1982
- A. Schulman, Inc. v. LevinOhio Supreme Court · 2007
- NLO, Inc. v. LimbachOhio Supreme Court · 1993
- Coca-Cola Bottling Corp. v. KosydarOhio Supreme Court · 1975
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.