Bobbie Brooks, Inc. v. Porterfield

Ohio Supreme Court

Bobbie Brooks, Inc. v. Porterfield

289 N.E.2d 899, 32 Ohio St. 2d 67, 61 Ohio Op. 2d 305, 1972 Ohio LEXIS 361

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 29, 1972

DocketNo. 72-430

StatusPublished

This text of 289 N.E.2d 899 (Bobbie Brooks, Inc. v. Porterfield) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bobbie Brooks, Inc. v. Porterfield, 289 N.E.2d 899, 32 Ohio St. 2d 67, 61 Ohio Op. 2d 305, 1972 Ohio LEXIS 361 (Ohio 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The issue here is whether the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals is unreasonable or unlawful.

Although the taxpayer claims tax exemption for all purchases, it offered no evidence to show what percentage of the claimed exempted items was used in connection with its cut-and-sew operation at its Cleveland, Ohio, facility, notwithstanding some of the cut-and-sew operations occur in other states, and are performed by both subsidiary corporations and independent contractors. Further, the board noted the failure of taxpayer to establish that it performed “all steps in the transformation of cloth into finished garments.”

The decision of the Board of Tax Appeals is neither unreasonable nor unlawful, and is, therefore, affirmed. Merchants Cold Storage Co. v. Glander (1948), 150 Ohio St. 524.

Decision affirmed.

O’Neihl, C. J., Schneider, Herbert, Corrigan, Stern, Leach and Brown, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

The issue here is whether the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals is unreasonable or unlawful.

Although the taxpayer claims tax exemption for all purchases, it offered no evidence to show what percentage of the claimed exempted items was used in connection with its cut-and-sew operation at its Cleveland, Ohio, facility, notwithstanding some of the cut-and-sew operations occur in other states, and are performed by both subsidiary corporations and independent contractors. Further, the board noted the failure of taxpayer to establish that it performed “all steps in the transformation of cloth into finished garments.”

The decision of the Board of Tax Appeals is neither unreasonable nor unlawful, and is, therefore, affirmed. Merchants Cold Storage Co. v. Glander (1948), 150 Ohio St. 524.

Decision affirmed.

O’Neihl, C. J., Schneider, Herbert, Corrigan, Stern, Leach and Brown, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 N.E.2d 899, 32 Ohio St. 2d 67, 61 Ohio Op. 2d 305, 1972 Ohio LEXIS 361, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bobbie-brooks-inc-v-porterfield-ohio-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack