Management Horizons, Inc. v. Lindley

Ohio Supreme Court

Management Horizons, Inc. v. Lindley

369 N.E.2d 1044, 52 Ohio St. 2d 68, 6 Ohio Op. 3d 234, 1977 Ohio LEXIS 460

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 16, 1977

DocketNo. 77-187

StatusPublished

This text of 369 N.E.2d 1044 (Management Horizons, Inc. v. Lindley) 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

Management Horizons, Inc. v. Lindley, 369 N.E.2d 1044, 52 Ohio St. 2d 68, 6 Ohio Op. 3d 234, 1977 Ohio LEXIS 460 (Ohio 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

B. C. 5709.01 subjects to taxation “[a]ll personal property located and used in business in this state * * * regardless of the residence of the owners thereof.”

Management Horizons, Inc., maintains that it was a holding company; that it was not using property in business in Ohio because it was not doing business in Ohio; and, therefore, that it is not subject to the Ohio personal property tax on its account receivable from MHDS.

The Board of Tax Appeals concluded that there was active participation by the appellant in the business of its subsidiary, MHDS, and it was, therefore, engaged in business in Ohio and using personal property in such business. See Nationwide Corp. v. Schneider, Tax Commr. (1966), 7 Ohio St. 2d 59; Standard Carloading Corp. v. Glander, Tax Commr. (1949), 152 Ohio St. 404. This court does not find that determination to be unreasonable or unlawful and the decision of the board is, therefore, affirmed.

Decision affirmed.

O’Neill, C. J., HebbeRt, Celebrezze, W. Brown, P. Brown, Sweeney and Locher, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

B. C. 5709.01 subjects to taxation “[a]ll personal property located and used in business in this state * * * regardless of the residence of the owners thereof.”

Management Horizons, Inc., maintains that it was a holding company; that it was not using property in business in Ohio because it was not doing business in Ohio; and, therefore, that it is not subject to the Ohio personal property tax on its account receivable from MHDS.

The Board of Tax Appeals concluded that there was active participation by the appellant in the business of its subsidiary, MHDS, and it was, therefore, engaged in business in Ohio and using personal property in such business. See Nationwide Corp. v. Schneider, Tax Commr. (1966), 7 Ohio St. 2d 59; Standard Carloading Corp. v. Glander, Tax Commr. (1949), 152 Ohio St. 404. This court does not find that determination to be unreasonable or unlawful and the decision of the board is, therefore, affirmed.

Decision affirmed.

O’Neill, C. J., HebbeRt, Celebrezze, W. Brown, P. Brown, Sweeney and Locher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

369 N.E.2d 1044, 52 Ohio St. 2d 68, 6 Ohio Op. 3d 234, 1977 Ohio LEXIS 460, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/management-horizons-inc-v-lindley-ohio-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack