In re Exemption from Taxation

Ohio Supreme Court

In re Exemption from Taxation

165 Ohio St. (N.S.) 180

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedApril 25, 1956

DocketNo. 34571

StatusPublished

This text of 165 Ohio St. (N.S.) 180 (In re Exemption from Taxation) 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

In re Exemption from Taxation, 165 Ohio St. (N.S.) 180 (Ohio 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

A comparison of the facts in the instant case with those in the case of Good Samaritan Hospital Assn. v. Glander, Tax Commr., supra., fails, in our opinion to disclose any dissimilarity between the two cases.

We find, therefore, largely in the words of our opinion in that case, that, “as the record discloses that since on and before tax-lien day” 1955 “the property in question, acquired by * * * [appellee] for use for a charitable purpose, was undergoing repairs and remodeling to condition it for the charitable use for which it was acquired, and there being nothing in the record to show that during such time it had been used for a noncharitable purpose,” the Board of Tax Appeals was not in error in allowing the exemption. Its decision is neither unlawful nor unreasonable.

Decision affirmed.

Matthias, Hart, Stewart and Taft, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

A comparison of the facts in the instant case with those in the case of Good Samaritan Hospital Assn. v. Glander, Tax Commr., supra., fails, in our opinion to disclose any dissimilarity between the two cases.

We find, therefore, largely in the words of our opinion in that case, that, “as the record discloses that since on and before tax-lien day” 1955 “the property in question, acquired by * * * [appellee] for use for a charitable purpose, was undergoing repairs and remodeling to condition it for the charitable use for which it was acquired, and there being nothing in the record to show that during such time it had been used for a noncharitable purpose,” the Board of Tax Appeals was not in error in allowing the exemption. Its decision is neither unlawful nor unreasonable.

Decision affirmed.

Matthias, Hart, Stewart and Taft, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

165 Ohio St. (N.S.) 180, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-exemption-from-taxation-ohio-1956.