H.R. Options, Inc. v. Wilkins

102 Ohio St. 3d 1214
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided May 12, 2004·No. No. 2002-1477·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

{¶ 1} The motion for clarification of ¶ 17 of the opinion of January 7, 2004, found at 100 Ohio St.3d 373, 2004-Ohio-l, 800 N.E.2d 740, is granted.

{¶ 2} Paragraph 17 of the opinion currently reads: “Because R.C. 5739.01(JJ)(3) represents an exclusion from taxation, it must be construed most favorably to the taxpayer.” In granting the Tax Commissioner’s motion, this court directs that the sentence will read: “Because R.C. 5739.01(JJ)(3) represents an exclusion from taxation, it must be construed strictly against the taxpayer. In re Estate of Roberts (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 311, 316, 762 N.E.2d 1001.”

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor and O’Donnell, JJ., concur. Pfeifer, J., dissents.

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

H.R. Options, Inc. v. Wilkins, 102 Ohio St. 3d 1214 (Ohio 2004).

102 Ohio St. 3d 1214 (H.R. Options, Inc. v. Wilkins) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bay Mechanical & Electrical Corp. v. Testa
2012 Ohio 4312 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2012)
Cincinnati Golf Management, Inc. v. Testa
2012 Ohio 2846 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2012)
Columbus City School District Board of Education v. Testa
2011 Ohio 5534 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2011)
Anderson/Maltbie Partnership v. Levin
2010 Ohio 4904 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2010)
Nestle R&D Center, Inc. v. Levin
2009 Ohio 1929 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2009)
Newman v. Levin
896 N.E.2d 995 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2008)