Legal Opinion
PPG Industries, Inc. v. Tracy
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided February 7, 1996No. 94-2656PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Per curiam
PPG claims that this use-tax assessment violates the federal Commerce Clause because it does not satisfy two prongs of Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, supra—the substantial-nexus and fair-apportionment prongs. We find no such violations and affirm the BTA’s decision.
In dormant Commerce Clause cases, according to Norandex, Inc. v. Limbach (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 26, 630 N.E.2d 329, we first find a taxable event in Ohio and then apply the Complete Auto Transit test.
In determining whether a taxable event occurred in Ohio, R.C. 5741.02(A) levies “an excise tax * * * on the storage, use, or…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Jefferson Lines, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1995
- Goldberg v. SweetSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- D. H. Holmes Co., Ltd. v. McNamaraSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- National Private Truck Council, Inc. v. Oklahoma Tax Comm'nSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- Norandex, Inc. v. LimbachOhio Supreme Court · 1994
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- New England Legal Foundation v. City of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1996
- Irwin Industrial Tool Co. v. Department of RevenueIllinois Supreme Court · 2010
- International Thomson Publishing, Inc. v. TracyOhio Supreme Court · 1997
- Irwin Industrial Tool Co. v. Department of RevenueAppellate Court of Illinois · 2009
- Lady Frances V, LLC v. Director, Division of TaxationNew Jersey Tax Court · 2009
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.