Opinion
No. 76-912
Decided April 13, 1977.
Taxation — Personal property — Glass manufacturing — Exclusions — R.C. 5701.03 — Board's determination upheld, when.
APPEAL from the Board of Tax Appeals.
This cause arises from a personal property tax assessment on certain items used in appellant's manufacture of polished flat glass by the float glass process.
The float glass process is similar to the older, plate glass process in the initial and final stages of glass-making. Both processes begin in the melting furnace and both involve the annealing lehr and cutting operations. However, the float glass process uses a tin bath in the intermediate stages which contains the molten glass as it is pulled and stretched along the manufacturing line. The molten glass flows out of the melting tank onto the tin. The glass is drawn through the tin bath by a lift out roll. Edge rolls control the width and thickness of the glass. Assistor rolls prevent the glass from narrowing after the edge rolls have stretched it to the correct width.
The Board of Tax Appeals upheld the Tax Commissioner's determination that the tin and the assistor rolls were subject to the Ohio personal property tax.
The cause is now before this court upon an appeal as a matter of right.
Messrs. Marshall. Melhorn, Block Belt and Mr. Lynn H. Gressley, for appellant.
Mr. William J. Brown, attorney general, and Ms. J. Elaine Bialczak, for appellee.
Appellant contends that the tin and the assistor rolls are not personal property subject to taxation because of the exclusion from the definition of personal property of "dies" in R.C. 5701.03.
The decision of the Board of Tax Appeals that the items in question are not "dies" is a factual determination.
This court's review of the board's decision is limited to questions of law and "[i]t is not the function of the court to substitute its judgment for that of the Board of Tax Appeals on factual issues, but only to determine from the record whether the decision rendered by the board is unreasonable or unlawful." Buckeye Power v. Kosydar (1973), 35 Ohio St.2d 137, approving and following Citizens Financial Corp. v. Porterfield (1971), 25 Ohio St.2d 53; R.C. 5717.04. Stated differently, "[i]t is the function of this court on appeal pursuant to Section 5611-2, General Code [analogous to R.C. 5717.04], to determine * * * whether the correct principles of law were applied in a reasonable manner." Midwest Haulers v. Glander (1948), 150 Ohio St. 402, 407.
The Board of Tax Appeals made a factual determination and applied to it the correct principles of law. Its decision is, therefore, reasonable and lawful and is affirmed.
Decision affirmed.
O'NEILL, C.J., HERBERT, CELEBREZZE, W. BROWN, P. BROWN, SWEENEY and LOCHER, JJ., concur.