Legal Opinion

Columbus Equipment Co. v. Limbach

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 20, 1988No. 87-716PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Per curiam

The commissioner argues that the interest amounts collected from the lessees are part of the “price” of the retail sale and taxable, regardless of the name taxpayer gives them. Taxpayer responds that these amounts were the cost of borrowing money with which the lessee was able to purchase the property and were not part of the “price.”

R.C. 5739.02 levies a tax on retail sales and this tax is measured by the “price” of the sale. R.C. 5739.01(H) defines “price” as:

“* * * [T]he aggregate value in money of anything paid or delivered, or promised to be paid or delivered, in the complete performance…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Grabler Manufacturing Co. v. KosydarOhio Supreme Court · 1973
  2. Fulton v. B. R. Baker-Toledo Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1934

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Xyovest, Inc. v. LimbachOhio Supreme Court · 1992
  2. Barry Equipment Co. v. LimbachOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  3. Barry Equipment Co. v. LimbachOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  4. Barry Equipment Co. v. LimbachOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  5. Leasing Dynamics, Inc. v. LimbachOhio Supreme Court · 1992

1 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