Barry Equipment Co. v. Limbach
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
The commissioner contends that pursuant to R.C. 5739.01(H), an itemized charge labeled as “interest,” which a consumer agrees to pay when it exercises an option to purchase leased tangible personal property, is part of the “price” upon which the sales tax is based.
In the recent case Columbus Equipment Co. v. Limbach (1988), 38 Ohio St. 3d 62, 526 N.E. 2d 294, the identical argument raised by the commissioner in the cause sub judice was argued therein. In Columbus Equipment, we held that the charges labeled as interest in the context of the exercise of an option to purchase leased equipment…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Union Metal Mfg. Co. v. KosydarOhio Supreme Court · 1974
- American Handling Equipment Co. v. KosydarOhio Supreme Court · 1975
- Columbus Equipment Co. v. LimbachOhio Supreme Court · 1988
- Stotts-Friedman Co. v. LindleyOhio Supreme Court · 1982
- Chemetron Corp. v. LimbachOhio Supreme Court · 1987
3Cited by1 opinion
- Paul Ford, Inc. v. RupeOhio Court of Appeals · 1993