American Rolling Mill Co. v. Evatt
| Decision Date | 11 December 1946 |
| Docket Number | 30642. |
| Citation | 147 Ohio St. 207,70 N.E.2d 651 |
| Parties | AMERICAN ROLLING MILL CO. et al. v. EVATT. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Appeal from the Board of Tax Appeals.
Dargusch Caren, Greek & King, of Columbus, for appellants.
Hugh S. Jenkins, Atty. Gen., and Aubrey A. Wendt, of Columbus, for appellee.
This case is here on an appeal from a decision of the Board of Tax Appeals, wherein certain bank deposits of the Sheffield Steel Corporation, an Ohio corporation were held to be taxable in this state.
It appears that Sheffield is a subsidiary of and is wholly owned by the American Rolling Mill Company (Armco) which operates a plant at Middletown, Ohio.
During the period of time involved, Shefield was engaged in manufacturing iron and steel products in plants situated in the states of Missouri and Oklahoma. Those of its officers who were in charge of managing the business were located at Kansas City, Missouri.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 5379, General Code, Armco filed consolidated personal property tax returns for the years 1938, 1939 and 1940, in which returns the bank deposits of Sheffield, maintained in Kansas City, Missouri, and Tulsa Oklahoma, were shown as being outside Ohio and not taxable in this state.
Upon an audit of such tax returns, the Ohio Tax Commissioner made amended assessments and established the situs of such deposits in Ohio for texation purposes.
On appeal, the Board of Tax Appeals modified and affirmed as modified the action of the Tax Commissioner determining that these bank deposits, with two exceptions not now in issue represented general reserves or balances of Sheffield used for the purpose of its business wherever transacted, within the terms of Section 5328-2, General Code, and consequently were taxable in Ohio.
Section 5328-1, General Code, reads in part: 'All * * * deposits * * * of persons residing in this state shall be subject to taxation [with certain exceptions not here involved] * * * and all * * * [deposits of the kinds and classes mentioned in Section 5328-2, General Code] of persons residing in this state used in and arising our of business transacted outside of this state by, for or on behalf of such persons * * * shall not be subject to taxation. * * *.'
However, Section 5328-2, General Code, after fixing an outside-Ohio situs for certain deposits, provides inter alia: '* * * But deposits representing general reserves or balances of the owner thereof, maintained for the purpose of his entire business wherever transacted, shall be considered located in the state * * * under whose laws it is organized [Ohio], if a corporation, by whomsoever they may be withdrawable. * * *.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial