Source: https://www.reedsmith.com/en/perspectives/2016/10/supreme-court-of-ohio-decision-provides-a-cautiona
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 03:10:54+00:00

Document:
Whether the taxpayer was required to file a cross-appeal to preserve its substantive challenge to the commissioner’s reduction of its NOL carryforward.
Nonetheless, the court resolved the second issue by finding that the commissioner met his obligation of “issuing” a final determination by the statutory deadline. The court rejected dicta from a sales tax case that equated issuance of a notice of assessment with mailing the notice.8 Instead, the court found that the statute was a remedial statute that required the court to liberally construe the statutory language in favor of the tax assessor. Thus, the commissioner’s journalized entry of the final determination was deemed to be sufficient to meet the statutory deadline for “issuing” a final determination.
Finally, the court determined that the taxpayer did not need to file a cross-appeal to preserve a substantive challenge to the commissioner’s reduction of its NOL carryforward, because the BTA’s decision did not address the substantive issue of the commissioner’s reduction.
Finally, taxpayers should consider parallels between the language in the CAT and sales tax statutes. In this case, the Supreme Court of Ohio rejected dicta from a decision in a sales tax case in which it had interpreted the word “issue” to mean “mailing date” for a sales-tax statute. While the court determined that the “specific legislative purposes” of the CAT and sales-tax statutes differed in this case, there may be other instances where those purposes are consistent. In those instances, it may benefit CAT taxpayers to seek guidance in the case law interpreting the sales-tax statute.
If you have questions about the court’s decision in International Paper or about Reed Smith’s Ohio Tax practice, please contact one of the authors of this Alert or the Reed Smith attorney with whom you usually work.
International Paper Company v. Testa, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-7454 (Ohio Oct. 26, 2016).
See H.B. 66, 126th Gen. Assembly (Ohio 2005).
See O.R.C. § 5751.53(B). In tax year 2030, the taxpayer is entitled to a refundable credit “for any portion of the qualifying taxpayer’s amortizable amount” that it did not use in the previous years. O.R.C. § 5751.53(C).
The commissioner entered the determination in its journal, which is available for public review.
See Carstab Corp. v. Limbach, 532 N.E.2d 102, 104 (Ohio 1988) (“We hold that the commissioner both “made” and “issued” the assessment prior to the deadline . . . , since she placed it . . . in the United States mails, certified service” before the deadline date).
Navistar Inc. v. Testa, Case No. 2015-2055, and Dana Corporation v. Testa, Case No. 2015-0460.

References: v. 
 § 5751
 § 5751
 v. 
 v. 
 v.