H.R. Options, Inc. v. Wilkins
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
{¶ 1} The motion for clarification of ¶ 17 of the opinion of January 7, 2004, found at 100 Ohio St.3d 373, 2004-Ohio-l, 800 N.E.2d 740, is granted.
{¶ 2} Paragraph 17 of the opinion currently reads: “Because R.C. 5739.01(JJ)(3) represents an exclusion from taxation, it must be construed most favorably to the taxpayer.” In granting the Tax Commissioner’s motion, this court directs that the sentence will read: “Because R.C. 5739.01(JJ)(3) represents an exclusion from taxation, it must be construed strictly against the taxpayer. In re Estate of Roberts (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 311, 316, 762 N.E.2d…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- In re Estate of RobertsOhio Supreme Court · 2002
- H.R. Options, Inc. v. ZainoOhio Supreme Court · 2004
3Cited by8 opinions
- Anderson/Maltbie Partnership v. LevinOhio Supreme Court · 2010
- Newman v. LevinOhio Supreme Court · 2008
- Cincinnati Golf Management, Inc. v. TestaOhio Supreme Court · 2012
- Nestle R&D Center, Inc. v. LevinOhio Supreme Court · 2009
- Bay Mechanical & Electrical Corp. v. TestaOhio Supreme Court · 2012
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.