CNG Development Co. v. Limbach
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
First, on the commissioner’s appeal, the commissioner argues that the BTA’s analysis of the permissive tax procedures is incorrect and, alternatively, that CNG did not overcome its burden to establish the extent of her error by showing where the sales occurred. We disagree with the commissioner that the BTA misanalyzed the permissive tax procedures, but agree that CNG did not establish the extent of the commissioner’s error.
Under R.C. Chapters 5739 and 5741, counties and other taxing authorities may impose permissive sales and use taxes. R.C. 5739.01 states that “[a]ll sales are presumed to…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Akron Standard Division of Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. v. LindleyOhio Supreme Court · 1984
- Osborne Bros. Welding Supply, Inc. v. LimbachOhio Supreme Court · 1988
- OAMCO v. LindleyOhio Supreme Court · 1987
- Thomas Steel Strip Corp. v. LimbachOhio Supreme Court · 1991
- Deerhake v. LimbachOhio Supreme Court · 1989
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- American Fiber Systems, Inc. v. LevinOhio Supreme Court · 2010
- Smith v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1993
- Abraitis v. TestaOhio Supreme Court · 2013
- Adams v. HarrisOhio Supreme Court · 2024
- WCI Steel, Inc. v. TestaOhio Supreme Court · 2011
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.