Ohio Match Co. v. Evatt
Opinion of the Court
ENTRY
This cause and matter came on to be heard before the Board of Tax Appeals on the appeal of The Ohio Match Company, the appellant above-named, from a corrected corporation franchise tax assessment for the year 1941 made against it as a foreign corporation by the Tax Commissioner on or about September 7, 1941, and from an order of the Tax Commissioner denying an application for review and correction filed by the appellant with respect to said assessment.
Said cause was heard by the Board of Tax Appeals upon a
On consideration of the facts presented by the record in this case the board finds that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of matches and other products at its
The board finds that the Tax Commissioner in determining the taxable valuation of the issued and outstanding shares of stock of the appellant corporation for the year 1941, represented by the property owned and business done by the corporation in this state, include in the numerator (and denominator) of the busi“ciSS fraction used by him ilM aggregate value of the wes made by the appellant to The Ohio Match Sales Company during the period of appellant’s franchise tax report, and that the aggregate value of the sales so made was and is the sum of $3,771,045.00. And the Tax Commissioner, likewise, included in the numerator (and denominator) of the property fraction so used by him for this purpose the value of appellant’s accounts and notes receivable accruing and becoming due and payable to appellant by reason of the sale of its products aforesaid to The Ohio Match Sales Company; which accounts and notes receivable were of the amount and value of $1,531,768.00. The board further finds as to this that appellant’s contention is that in determining the business fraction to be used for the purpose aforesaid, the Tax Commissioner should have disregarded the corporate entity of The Ohio Match Sales Company and should have determined said business fraction on the sales made by the subsidiary as an agent or instrumentality of the appellant corporation and in the same manner as if such sales to the trade had been made not by The Ohio Match Sales Company, but by the appellant corporation itself; and in this view appellant further contends that sales made by The Ohio Match -Sales Company from warehouses maintained by it outside of the State of Ohio to points outside of this state, should be eliminated in the computation of the business done by the appellant in Ohio. In this connection, as the board finds, the appellant further contends that in computing the property fraction for the purpose aforesaid the Tax Commissioner oiiould have used the accounts receivable of The Ohio Match Sales Company on its sales of such products to the trade, and not the accounts receivable' accruing to the appellant on the sale by it of such products to The Ohio Match Sales Company; that the accounts receivable of The Ohio Match Sales Company should be allocated in and
As to the contentions made by the appellant as aforesaid, the Board of Tax Appeals is bound by the decision of the Supreme Court of Ohio in the case of North v The Higbee Company, 131 Oh St 507, to the effect that in the absence of fraud or a purpose to effect the same the separate corporate entities of a parent and subsidiary corporation will not be disregarded notwithstanding the fact that the subsidiary corporation is controlled by the parent through its stock ownership, and notwithstanding the further fact that the officers and directors of the parent corporation are likewise officers and directors of the subsidiary corporation. In this view and since it does not appear from the record in this case that The Ohio Match Sales Company, the subsidiary, has abdicated its functions as a separate and independent corporation, or that the appellant corporation has intervened in the affairs of its subsidiary so as to make the same a mere department of its own business enterprise, the board finds that The Ohio Match Sales Company was not a mere instrumentality or agency of the appellant corporation in the sale by it of the products manufactured by the appellant. For this reason and on the further consideration that the provisions of §5379 GC, relating to the elimination of inter-company accounts, do not apply in the determination and assessment of corporation franchise taxes, the board finds that the Tax Commissioner in determining the taxable valuation of appellant’s Issued and outstanding corporation stock represented by the property owned and business done by the corporation in this state, and in determining the consequent amount of franchise taxes to be paid by the appellant corporation for the year 1941, did not err in including as Ohio business of the corporation sales made by the appellant to its subsidiary, The Ohio Match Sales Company, and for the reasons aforesaid the Tax Commissioner did not err in including as property owned by the corporation in this state accounts or notes receivable accruing to the appellant from sales of its products to The Ohio Match Sales Company.
It is, therefore, by the- Board of Tax Appeals considered and ordered that the corporation franchise tax assessment and proceedings complained of in appellant’s appeal herein be, and the same hereby are, affirmed.
I hereby certify the foregoing to be a true and correct copy of the action of the Board of Tax Appeals of the Department of Taxation, this day taken with respect to the above matter.
HARRY J. ROSE, Secretary.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.