neutral
Cited (no substantive treatment)
0.8 score
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
H.R. Options, Inc.
v.
Wilkins, Tax Commr.
v.
Wilkins, Tax Commr.
No. 2002-1477.
Ohio Supreme Court.
May 12, 2004.
102 Ohio St. 3d 1214
Bricker & Eckler, L.L.P., and Mark A. Engel, for appellee., Jim Petro, Attorney General, and Robert C. Maier, Assistant Attorney General, for appellant.
Connor, Donnell, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney.
Cited by 8 opinions | Published
{¶ 1} The motion for clarification of ¶ 17 of the opinion of January 7, 2004, found at 100 Ohio St.3d 373, 2004-Ohio-l, 800 N.E.2d 740, is granted.
{¶ 2} Paragraph 17 of the opinion currently reads: “Because R.C. 5739.01(JJ)(3) represents an exclusion from taxation, it must be construed most favorably to the taxpayer.” In granting the Tax Commissioner’s motion, this court directs that the sentence will read: “Because R.C. 5739.01(JJ)(3) represents an exclusion from taxation, it must be construed strictly against the taxpayer. In re Estate of Roberts (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 311, 316, 762 N.E.2d 1001.”
Moyer, C.J., Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor and O’Donnell, JJ., concur. Pfeifer, J., dissents.