Harsco Corp. v. Tracy
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
Harsco, first, argues that the assessment process overstates the value of the inventory at the Astro Metallurgical division location and that the Tax Commissioner has authority under R.C. 5711.18 to adjust the assessments. Harsco claims that it does not challenge applying the averaging principle; however, it claims that averaging by the two taxpayers in the special circumstances of'this case overstates the average value of the inventory. The Tax Commissioner replies that, under the current statutes and case law, he correctly valued the inventory of both taxpayers. We agree with the Tax…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
- McGowan v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
- City of New Orleans v. DukesSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Nordlinger v. HahnSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- F. S. Royster Guano Co. v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- In Re A.G.Ohio Supreme Court · 2014
- State ex rel. Wolfe v. Delaware County Board of ElectionsOhio Supreme Court · 2000
- J.M. Smucker, L.L.C. v. LevinOhio Supreme Court · 2007
- State ex rel. Wolfe v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of ElectionsOhio Supreme Court · 2000
- State v. WilliamsonOhio Court of Appeals · 2022
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.