Per Curiam.
Appellant contends that amendments to personal property tax returns are limited to correcting "items, numbers and computations [as] made on the [original] return." This court has not held such a restrictive view of the function of an amended return. See Procter & Gamble Co. v. Evatt (1943), 142 Ohio St. 373. Accord Seiberling Rubber Co. v. Evatt (1944), 43 Ohio Law Abs. 500; Welsh v. Kosydar (1973),...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.