6 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Ohio courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Trinova Corp. v. Michigan Department of Treasurygreen2 sentences2019Under that test, to meet its burden of proof showing that a state's tax apportionment methodology is constitutionally invalid, the taxpayer must prove " 'by clear and cogent evidence that the income attributed to Ohio is in fact out of all proportion to the business transacted in Ohio or leads to a grossly distorted result.' " See Defender's Brief at 37-38, quoting Cooper Tire and Rubber Co. v. Limbach, 70 Ohio St.3d 347, 350 (1994), citing Trinova Corp. v. Michigan Dept. of Treasury, 498 U.S. 358, 380 (1991). {¶ 47} Having correctly described but not having actually named this external consis 1994Trinova Corp. v. Michigan Dept. of Treasury (1991), 498 U.S. 358, 380 , 111 S.Ct. 818, 832 , 112 L.Ed.2d 884, 908-909 . | 1 | 3 |
Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. Limbachgreen1 sentence2019Under that test, to meet its burden of proof showing that a state's tax apportionment methodology is constitutionally invalid, the taxpayer must prove " 'by clear and cogent evidence that the income attributed to Ohio is in fact out of all proportion to the business transacted in Ohio or leads to a grossly distorted result.' " See Defender's Brief at 37-38, quoting Cooper Tire and Rubber Co. v. Limbach, 70 Ohio St.3d 347, 350 (1994), citing Trinova Corp. v. Michigan Dept. of Treasury, 498 U.S. 358, 380 (1991). {¶ 47} Having correctly described but not having actually named this external consis | 1 | 1 |
American Ass'n of University Professors v. Central State Universitygreen1 sentence2019State Univ., 87 Ohio St.3d 55, 58, 60 (1999). {¶ 40} Under the fair apportionment prong of the Commerce Clause and the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution, a state tax must meet an internal consistency test and an external consistency test. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Goldberg v. Sweet
green
2 sentences1996It claims, under Goldberg v. Sweet (1989), 488 U.S. 252 , 109 S.Ct. 582 , 102 L.Ed.2d 607 , that Ohio’s credit for sales or use taxes paid to other states does not satisfy the external consistency requirement of the Commerce Clause. 1996It claims, under Goldberg v. Sweet (1989), 488 U.S. 252 , 109 S.Ct. 582 , 102 L.Ed.2d 607 , that Ohio’s credit for sales or use taxes paid to other states does not satisfy the external consistency requirement of the Commerce Clause. | 4 | 1994–1996 |
Quotron Systems, Inc. v. Limbach
green
2 sentences1996It claims, under Goldberg v. Sweet (1989), 488 U.S. 252 , 109 S.Ct. 582 , 102 L.Ed.2d 607 , that Ohio’s credit for sales or use taxes paid 3 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO to other states does not satisfy the external consistency requirement of the Commerce Clause. {¶ 12} However, in Quotron Systems, Inc. v. Limbach (1992), 62 Ohio St.3d 447 , 584 N.E.2d 658 , we held that Ohio’s use tax does satisfy the fair- apportionment criterion because of this credit. 1996It claims, under Goldberg v. Sweet (1989), 488 U.S. 252 , 109 S.Ct. 582 , 102 L.Ed.2d 607 , that Ohio’s credit for sales or use taxes paid 3 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO to other states does not satisfy the external consistency requirement of the Commerce Clause. {¶ 12} However, in Quotron Systems, Inc. v. Limbach (1992), 62 Ohio St.3d 447 , 584 N.E.2d 658 , we held that Ohio’s use tax does satisfy the fair- apportionment criterion because of this credit. | 2 | 1996–1996 |
Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Jefferson Lines, Inc.
red
2 sentences1997We have therefore consistently approved taxation of sales without any division of the tax base among different States, and have instead held such taxes properly measurable by the gross charge for the purchase, regardless of any activity outside a taxing district that might have preceded the sale or might occur in the future.” Id. at 186 , 115 S.Ct. at 1339 , 131 L.Ed.2d at 272-273 . 1997We have therefore consistently approved taxation of sales without any division of the tax base among different States, and have instead held such taxes properly measurable by the gross charge for the purchase, regardless of any activity outside a taxing district that might have preceded the sale or might occur in the future.” Id. at 186 , 115 S.Ct. at 1339 , 131 L.Ed.2d at 272-273 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.