Consolidation Coal Co. v. Kosydar
Ohio Supreme Court
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
- France Co. v. EvattOhio Supreme Court · 1944
- Bailey v. EvattOhio Supreme Court · 1944
- Fyr-Fyter Co. v. GlanderOhio Supreme Court · 1948
- Dye Coal Co. v. EvattOhio Supreme Court · 1944
3Cited by10 opinions
- Lyons v. LimbachOhio Supreme Court · 1988
- Richardson v. State Tax CommissionIdaho Supreme Court · 1979
- Timken Co. v. KosydarOhio Supreme Court · 1977
- Kilbarger Construction, Inc. v. LimbachOhio Supreme Court · 1988
- Bunker Hill Co. v. State ex rel. State Tax CommissionIdaho Supreme Court · 1986
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.