Legal Opinion
R.H. Macy & Co. v. Lindley
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided August 6, 1986No. 85-1407PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Per curiam
The sole question before this court is whether the BTA’s decision permitting appellee to compute its net income by a separate accounting is contrary to law. As stated in Citizens Financial Corp. v. Porterfield (1971), 25 Ohio St. 2d 53 [54 O.O.2d 191], paragraph one of the syllabus: “The Supreme Court reviews decisions of the Board of Tax Appeals on questions of law. It is not the function of this court to substitute its judgment for that of the Board of Tax Appeals on factual issues, but only to determine from the record whether the decision rendered by the Board is unreasonable or unlawful.…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Container Corp. of America v. Franchise Tax BoardSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Mobil Oil Corp. v. Commissioner of Taxes of Vt.Supreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Moorman Manufacturing Co. v. BairSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Butler Bros. v. McColgan, Franchise Tax CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
- Exxon Corp. v. Department of Revenue of Wis.Supreme Court of the United States · 1980
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Lancaster Colony Corp. v. LimbachOhio Supreme Court · 1988
- American Home Products Corp. v. LimbachOhio Supreme Court · 1990
- Wesnovtek Corp. v. WilkinsOhio Supreme Court · 2005