David v. Peck
| Decision Date | 03 March 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 33679,33679 |
| Citation | 161 Ohio St. 80,118 N.E.2d 146 |
| Parties | , 53 O.O. 24 DAVID v. PECK, Tax Com'r. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Chas. K. Correll, Canton, for appellant.
C. William O'Neill, Atty. Gen., and Jack H. Bertsch, Columbus, for appellee.
It is admitted by appellant 'that a copy of the Tax Commissioner's finding was not attached to the copy of the notice of appeal * * * since appellant assumed that the Tax Commissioner was fully aware of his own findings.'
Compliance with the specific and mandatory provision of Section 5611, General Code, that 'the notice of such appeal shall set forth or shall have attached thereto and incorporated therein by reference, a true copy of the notice sent by the commissioner to the taxpayer of the final determination complained of,' is essential to confer jurisdiction on the Board of Tax Appeals.
The decision of the Board of Tax Appeals dismissing the appeal on the ground of failure to comply with the mandatory jurisdictional statutory requirement is not unreasonable or unlawful. Kent Provision Co., Inc., v. Peck, 159 Ohio St. 84, 110 N.E.2d 776.
The decision of the Board of Tax Appeals is affirmed.
Decision affirmed.
It is my opinion that attaching a copy of the final order to the notice of appeal which was filed with the Board of Tax Appeals constituted substantial compliance with Section 5611, General Code.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Leakas Furriers, Inc. v. Bowers
...Co. v. Glander, 158 Ohio St. 351, 109 N.E.2d 475; Kent Provision Co., Inc., v. Peck, 159 Ohio St. 84, 110 N.E.2d 776; David v. Peck, 161 Ohio St. 80, 118 N.E.2d 146. It is now contended that the appellant in this court is limited to the errors so specified in its notice of appeal to the Boa......
-
Queen City Valves v. Peck
...291, 48 N.E. 1097, 1098.' To the same effect are Kent Provision Co., Inc., v. Peck, 159 Ohio St. 84, 110 N.E.2d 776, and David v. Peck, 161 Ohio St., 80, 118 N.E.2d 146. A somewhat analogous situation is presented by Section 543, General Code, Section 4903.10, Revised Code, pertaining to an......
- Columbus & Southern Ohio Elec. Co. v. Peck
-
Clippard Instrument Laboratory, Inc. v. Lindley
...is not unreasonable or unlawful. Kent Provision Co., Inc. v. Peck Tax Commr., 159 Ohio St. 84, 110 N.E.2d 776; David v. Peck, Tax Commr., 161 Ohio St. 80, 11 N.E.2d 146.' Based on the foregoing, the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals is Decision affirmed. C. WILLIAM O'NEILL, C. J., and HE......