Ormet Corp. v. Lindley
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
Appellant, the Tax Commissioner (hereinafter “commissioner”), contends that when a direct pay permit is issued exempting tangible personal property from taxation, and, subsequently, the statutory provision for the exemption is repealed, then the direct pay permit is automatically canceled.
In support of this contention, appellant relies on former R. C. 5739.02(B)(17).2 This provision, commonly referred to as the “use on use” exemption, created “a tax exemption for machinery being used, not to transform raw materials into a part of the product produced for sale, but rather to produce still…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Interlake, Inc. v. KosydarOhio Supreme Court · 1975
- American Handling Equipment Co. v. KosydarOhio Supreme Court · 1975
- Switzer v. KosydarOhio Supreme Court · 1973
- H. C. Albring Co. v. KosydarOhio Supreme Court · 1976
3Cited by11 opinions
- Blocker Drilling Canada, Ltd. v. ConradNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1984
- Crown Communication, Inc. v. TestaOhio Supreme Court · 2013
- HealthSouth Corp. v. LevinOhio Supreme Court · 2009
- NLO, Inc. v. LimbachOhio Supreme Court · 1993
- Internatl. Paper Co. v. Testa (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2016
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.