Legal Opinion

Consolidation Coal Co. v. Kosydar

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 30, 1975No. 74-144PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Per curiam

The issue for determination here is whether the items described above are used or consumed “* * * directly in the production of tangible personal property for sale by * * * mining * * R. C. 5739.01(E) (2).

This “direct use” exception has been the subject of a number of cases before this court. The test used is found in Youngstown Bldg. Material & Fuel Co. v. Bowers (1958), 167 Ohio St. 363, 367:

“In attempting to interpret the ambiguous word, ‘directly,’ as used by the General Assembly, this court has adopted a physical test: When does the manufacturing or processing activity begin and end, and…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. France Co. v. EvattOhio Supreme Court · 1944
  2. Bailey v. EvattOhio Supreme Court · 1944
  3. Fyr-Fyter Co. v. GlanderOhio Supreme Court · 1948
  4. Dye Coal Co. v. EvattOhio Supreme Court · 1944

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Lyons v. LimbachOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  2. Richardson v. State Tax CommissionIdaho Supreme Court · 1979
  3. Timken Co. v. KosydarOhio Supreme Court · 1977
  4. Kilbarger Construction, Inc. v. LimbachOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  5. Bunker Hill Co. v. State ex rel. State Tax CommissionIdaho Supreme Court · 1986

5 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