Summary
In Goodyear Aircraft Corp. v. Peck (1954), 162 Ohio St. 200, 55 O.O. 101, 122 N.E.2d 700, we ruled that the language of R.C. 5701.03 is unambiguous and concluded that the costs of the drawings should not be included in the cost of the machinery.
Summary of this case from National Distillers Chem. Corp. v. LimbachOpinion
No. 33894
Decided November 17, 1954.
Taxation — "Personal property" defined — Section 5701.03, Revised Code — Patterns, jigs, dies and drawings not included — Not elements of valuation for tax purposes.
1. Under the provisions of Section 5701.03, Revised Code (Section 5325, General Code), the term "personal property," as used in Title LVII of the Revised Code, does not include patterns, jigs, dies or drawings.
2. Such patterns, jigs, dies and drawings may not be included as elements of valuation of manufacturing inventory for personal property tax purposes.
APPEAL from the Board of Tax Appeals.
On July 31, 1953, the Tax Commissioner of Ohio made a deficiency personal property tax assessment against the appellant, the Goodyear Aircraft Corporation for the year 1950.
On an appeal to the Board of Tax Appeals, the assessment order of the Tax Commissioner was affirmed with one member dissenting.
The matter has been appealed to this court on the ground that the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals is unreasonable and unlawful.
Messrs. Vorys, Sater, Seymour Pease and Mr. Carl Tangeman, for appellant.
Mr. C. William O'Neil, attorney general, Mr. W.E. Herron and Mr. Ralph N. Mahaffey, for appellee.
The Goodyear Aircraft Corporation owns and operates a plant located in Springfield Township, Summit County, Ohio.
During the period here involved the company was engaged in the construction of airships for the federal government and also in the production of radar equipment for the Bendix Aviation Corporation.
For use in each of these operations the appellant produced certain necessary patterns, jigs, dies and drawings. The sole question of law here involved is the taxability of these items. The facts are not in dispute.
The answer to the problem is found in the provisions of Section 5701.03, Revised Code (Section 5325, General Code), which read in part as follows:
"As used in Title LVII of the Revised Code, `personal property' includes every tangible thing which is the subject of ownership * * * other than patterns, jigs, dies, drawings * * *."
This unambiguous language would seem to be controlling. However, the appellee commissioner nevertheless contends that the items mentioned are includable as elements of valuation of the appellant's manufacturing inventory for personal property tax purposes. In the opinion of the majority of the Board of Tax Appeals it is stated that "this assessment is not an attempt to tax dies, jigs and patterns."
With this conclusion this court finds itself unable to agree. The language of the statute is clear. There is no intimation that these items are taxable as elements of valuation of manufacturing inventory or in any other manner. It is provided simply and specifically that patterns, jigs, dies, drawings, etc., are not included when the personal property tax is imposed, and it is not within the province of this court to amend the statute by holding that in some instances the items are directly or indirectly subject to the tax. In the construction of a legislative enactment, the question is not what did the General Assembly intend to enact but what is the meaning of that which it did enact. Slingluff v. Weaver, 66 Ohio St. 621, 64 N.E. 574; State v. Stevens, 161 Ohio St. 432, 119 N.E.2d 616.
Under the circumstances the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals must be reversed.
Decision reversed.
MIDDLETON, TAFT, HART, ZIMMERMAN, STEWART and LAMNECK, JJ., concur.