Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Corner Co. v. Bowers

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided January 18, 1956No. 34365Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partTaft, J.

Although appellant apparently contended before the Board of Tax Appeals that it was not subject to payment of the Ohio franchise tax because it was not “doing business in Ohio,” a reading of appellant’s brief in this court discloses that no such contention was made in this court. In disposing of that contention, the Board of Tax Appeals said: *433Standard Carloading Corp. v. Glander, Tax Commr., 152 Ohio St., 404, and C. F. Kettering, Inc., v. Glander, Tax Commr., 155 Ohio St., 356, leave this board with considerable donbt as to whether appellant was doing business in this state. That doubt must…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Aluminum Co. of America v. EvattOhio Supreme Court · 1942
  2. C. F. Kettering, Inc. v. EvattOhio Supreme Court · 1945
  3. Cliffs Corp. v. EvattOhio Supreme Court · 1941
  4. Standard Carloading Corp. v. GlanderOhio Supreme Court · 1949
  5. C. F. Kettering, Inc. v. GlanderOhio Supreme Court · 1951

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API