Spartan Chem. Co. v. Tracy, 94-1119
| Decision Date | 17 May 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-1119,94-1119 |
| Citation | 648 N.E.2d 819,72 Ohio St.3d 200 |
| Parties | SPARTAN CHEMICAL COMPANY, INC., Appellant, v. TRACY, Tax Commr., Appellee. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Appellant, Spartan Chemical Company, Inc., purchased a 1973 fifty-three-foot Hatteras motor yacht, named the Hidilution, on September 26, 1980. The yacht was brought to Ohio first, in May 1981, but was later used in Florida. No sales or use tax was paid.
On June 7, 1983, the Tax Commissioner of Ohio, appellee, contacted owners of watercraft registered through the Coast Guard. A tax agent inquired of Spartan as to whether sales or use tax was due on the Hidilution. On June 21, 1983, Spartan's executive vice-president responded that the Hidilution had been purchased in Michigan and was The commissioner took no further action to assess the boat at that time.
In 1985, the commissioner conducted an audit of Spartan's records for the audit period January 1, 1981 through December 31, 1983. The audit resulted in an assessment on January 29, 1985 of $27,413.43 in sales and use taxes; the commissioner did not assess any tax on the purchase of the Hidilution. Spartan paid the assessment in full.
In 1990, the commissioner, investigating boats docked or stored at the Toledo Yacht Club, discovered the Hidilution. The commissioner issued a use tax assessment and penalty against Spartan for $10,091.25. Spartan petitioned for reassessment, contending that the four-year statute of limitations of R.C. 5741.16 barred the assessment and that the full payment of sales and use taxes for the period January 1, 1981 through December 31, 1983 was the "functional equivalent" of having filed a use tax return, under R.C. 5741.16.
The commissioner found that the failure to file a use tax return made the statute of limitations inapplicable. On appeal, the Board of Tax Appeals ("BTA") affirmed the commissioner's order.
The cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right.
Marshall & Melhorn, Reeve W. Kelsey, Jessica R. Christy and Richard M. Kerger, Toledo, for appellant.
Betty D. Montgomery, Atty. Gen., and Richard C. Farrin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The decision of the BTA is affirmed.
The applicable statute, R.C. 5741.16, is clear and unambiguous. As pertinent, it provides:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Desmond v. Mahoning Cnty. Prosecutor's Office
...the intent of the legislature by giving effect to the words used, not by deleting or adding words."); Spartan Chem. Co. v. Tracy , 72 Ohio St.3d 200, 648 N.E.2d 819 (1995) ("The court may not add to or delete from the language of applicable statutes."). {¶ 49} R.C. 124.341 contains no excep......
-
Hubbard v. Canton City School Bd. of Edn.
...13, 263 N.E.2d 249; Dougherty v. Torrence (1982), 2 Ohio St.3d 69, 70, 2 OBR 625, 442 N.E.2d 1295; Spartan Chem. Co., Inc. v. Tracy (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 200, 202, 648 N.E.2d 819. Based upon these rules of statutory construction, we refuse to recast the language of R.C. 2744.02(B)(4) so tha......
- Kruse v. Voyager Ins. Cos.
-
State v. Smith, 104 Ohio St.3d 106 (OH 12/8/2004)
...Hubbard v. Canton City School Bd. of Edn., 97 Ohio St.3d 451, 2002-Ohio-6718, 780 N.E.2d 543, at ¶ 14; Spartan Chem. Co., Inc. v. Tracy (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 200, 202, 648 N.E.2d 819; Dougherty v. Torrence (1982), 2 Ohio St.3d 69, 70, 2 OBR 625, 442 N.E.2d 1295; Bernardini v. Conneaut Area ......