Summary
In Marc Lance Ford, the dealer excluded from the inventory calculations automobiles that it had removed from its new car inventory and used as demonstrators and official's cars, as here.
Summary of this case from Zalud Oldsmobile, Inc. v. LimbachOpinion
No. 69-87
Decided June 18, 1969.
Taxation — Motor vehicles — Operated by owner with dealer's license plates — Not motor vehicle registered by owner — Personal property inventory valuation — Manufacturer's federal excise tax paid by dealer not excluded.
1. An automobile, properly operated by its owner with dealer's plates issued pursuant to Section 4503.27, Revised Code, does not thereby become a motor vehicle "registered by the owner thereof" within the meaning of Section 5701.03, Revised Code.
2. The amount of the manufacturer's federal excise tax paid by an automobile dealer to the manufacturer with respect to an automobile may not be excluded by the dealer from his inventory valuation of such automobile for Ohio personal property tax purposes.
APPEAL from the Board of Tax Appeals.
Appellant taxpayer is a dealer engaged in the sale and servicing of new and used automobiles.
Upon the application of the taxpayer for review and redetermination of personal property taxes for the years 1963, 1964 and 1965, the Tax Commissioner made a final determination which reads, so far as pertinent:
"3. That all `demonstrators,' i.e., new cars assigned to salesmen, officials, and other employees of the applicant and bearing dealers tags obtained pursuant to the provisions of Section 4503.27, Revised Code, were properly included in the valuation of the applicant's taxable merchandise inventories for all the years assessed * * *.
"4. That deductions made by the applicant in computing and reporting its taxable inventory valuations for the years 1964 and 1965 for (a) manufacturer's federal excise taxes * * * were all properly disallowed * * *."
Upon appeal, the Board of Tax Appeals affirmed the foregoing determinations of the Tax Commissioner.
The cause is now before this court upon appeal from the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals.
Messrs. Walter, Haverfield, Buescher Chockley and Mr. John J. Kelley, Jr., for appellant.
Mr. Paul W. Brown, attorney general, and Mr. R.A. Malrick, for appellee.
The taxpayer contends that those automobiles removed from its new car inventory for use as demonstrators and officials' cars and operated under dealer's plates issued pursuant to Section 4503.27, Revised Code, should have been excluded from its inventory for personal property tax purposes. It bases this contention upon the part of Section 5701.03, Revised Code, which reads:
"As used in Title LVII of the Revised Code [providing for personal property taxation], `personal property' includes every tangible thing which is the subject of ownership * * * other than * * * motor vehicles registered by the owner thereof * * *."
Although Trailer Mart, Inc., v. Bowers (1955), 164 Ohio St. 354, 130 N.E.2d 793, would seem to require the rejection of any such contention, the Tax Commissioner did not rely upon that decision in its brief or argument in this court. Furthermore, we find it unnecessary to consider whether that decision should be followed, because of our conclusion that an automobile, properly operated by its owner under dealer's plates issued pursuant to Section 4503.27, Revised Code, does not thereby become a motor vehicle "registered by the owner thereof" within the meaning of Section 5701.03, Revised Code.
So far as pertinent, Section 4503.27, Revised Code, reads:
"A manufacturer of motor vehicles, or dealer therein, shall make application for registration, for each place in this state at which the business of manufacturing or dealing in motor vehicles is carried on. * * *"
Section 4503.30, Revised Code, provides in part:
"Any placards issued by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles and bearing the distinctive number assigned to a * * * dealer pursuant to Section 4503.27 * * * may be displayed on any motor vehicle * * * owned by the * * * dealer, or lawfully in the possession or control of the * * * dealer, his agent or employee, and shall be displayed on no other motor vehicle. * * *"
It is apparent therefore that dealer's plates do not provide for registration of any specific vehicle.
We are also of the opinion that the reasons given for our decision in Gruen Watch Co. v. Evatt (1944), 143 Ohio St. 461, 55 N.E.2d 794, require the conclusion that the amount of the manufacturer's federal excise tax paid by an automobile dealer to the manufacturer with respect to an automobile may not be excluded by the dealer from his inventory valuation of such automobile for Ohio personal property tax purposes.
Decision affirmed.
LEACH, MATTHIAS, O'NEILL, SCHNEIDER, HERBERT and DUNCAN, JJ., concur.
LEACH, J., of the Tenth Appellate District, sitting for ZIMMERMAN, J. Because of the inability, "by reason of illness," of JUSTICE CHARLES B. ZIMMERMAN "to hear, consider and decide" this cause, JUDGE LEACH of the Court of Appeals was, pursuant to Section 2 of Article IV of the Constitution of Ohio, duly directed by the Chief Justice "to sit with the justices of the Supreme Court in the place and stead of" JUSTICE ZIMMERMAN, and JUDGE LEACH did so and heard and considered this cause prior to the decease of JUSTICE ZIMMERMAN on June 5, 1969.