Legal Opinion

United States Shoe Corp. v. Kosydar

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided February 5, 1975No. Nos. 74-83, 74-84 and 74-85PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHeRbeet, J.

The first issue presented herein involves the taxpayers’ contention that materials used to make sample shoes, shells and lasts needed for test-size shoes, and finished shoes and handbags purchased from other manufacturers are excepted from sales taxes under R. C. 5739.01 (E) (1) and (2). (The Vaisey-Bristol case does not, however, contain the question of samples.)

In enacting R. G. 5739.01(E), the General Assembly intended that a sales tax, in most cases, be levied only on the final sale of tangible personal property. To implement this purpose, the General Assembly provided that:

“ (E) ‘Retail…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Ace Steel Baling, Inc. v. PorterfieldOhio Supreme Court · 1969
  2. Mead Corp. v. GlanderOhio Supreme Court · 1950
  3. Accountant's Computer Services, Inc. v. KosydarOhio Supreme Court · 1973
  4. Koch v. KosydarOhio Supreme Court · 1972
  5. Richardson-Merrell, Inc. v. PorterfieldOhio Supreme Court · 1972

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. White Motor Corp. v. KosydarOhio Supreme Court · 1977
  2. Federated Department Stores, Inc. v. KosydarOhio Supreme Court · 1976
  3. Fliteways, Inc. v. LindleyOhio Supreme Court · 1981
  4. Compuserve, Inc. v. LindleyOhio Court of Appeals · 1987
  5. Lindner Bros. v. KosydarOhio Supreme Court · 1976

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API