Legal Opinion

R. R. Donnelley & Sons Co. v. Porterfield

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 7, 1972No. 71-673PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLeach, J.

The issue in this case is whether xnatei’ials and equipment purchased aixd used by appellant in its composing room or in its offset plate making operations are excepted from the Ohio sales and use taxes.

Only the question of sales tax need be discussed herein, in view of R. C. 5741.02(C) (2), which provides that the use tax does xiot apply to the acquisition of tangible personal property which, if made in Ohio, would be a sale ixot subject to the sales tax imposed by R. C. 5739.01 to 5739.31.

In order to bring the issues involved herein into proper focus, it should be pointed out that appellant…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Canton Malleable Iron Co. v. PorterfieldOhio Supreme Court · 1972
  2. Ohio Edison Co. v. PorterfieldOhio Supreme Court · 1971
  3. Wesleyan University Press, Inc. v. DonahueOhio Supreme Court · 1966

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Cardinal Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Cuyahoga County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1975
  2. Interlake, Inc. v. KosydarOhio Supreme Court · 1975
  3. McClure Newspapers, Inc. v. Vermont Department of TaxesSupreme Court of Vermont · 1974
  4. Dayton Press, Inc. v. LindleyOhio Supreme Court · 1986
  5. Bell & Howell Co. v. LimbachOhio Court of Appeals · 1984

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