Case Name: American Can Co., Appellee, v. Bowers, Tax Commr., Appellant; American Can Co., Appellant, v. Bowers, Tax Commr., Appellee; Philip Morris, Inc., Appellee, v. Bowers, Tax Commr., Appellant; Holland Furnace Co., Appellee, v. Bowers, Tax Commr., Appellant; Champion Spark Plug Co., Appellee, v. Bowers, Tax Commr., Appellant; Copeland Refrigeration Corp., Appellant, v. Bowers Tax Commr., Appellee
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1959-04-01
Citations: 169 Ohio St. 81
Docket Number: Nos. 35675, 35676, 35705, 35749, 35750 and 35807
Parties: American Can Co., Appellee, v. Bowers, Tax Commr., Appellant. American Can Co., Appellant, v. Bowers, Tax Commr., Appellee. Philip Morris, Inc., Appellee, v. Bowers, Tax Commr., Appellant. Holland Furnace Co., Appellee, v. Bowers, Tax Commr., Appellant. Champion Spark Plug Co., Appellee, v. Bowers, Tax Commr., Appellant. Copeland Refrigeration Corp., Appellant, v. Bowers Tax Commr., Appellee.
Judges: Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Stewart and Taet, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, New Service
Volume: 169
Pages: 81–86

Head Matter:
American Can Co., Appellee, v. Bowers, Tax Commr., Appellant. American Can Co., Appellant, v. Bowers, Tax Commr., Appellee. Philip Morris, Inc., Appellee, v. Bowers, Tax Commr., Appellant. Holland Furnace Co., Appellee, v. Bowers, Tax Commr., Appellant. Champion Spark Plug Co., Appellee, v. Bowers, Tax Commr., Appellant. Copeland Refrigeration Corp., Appellant, v. Bowers Tax Commr., Appellee.
(Nos. 35675, 35676, 35705, 35749, 35750 and 35807 —
Decided April 1, 1959.)
Messrs. Graydon, Head & Ritchey and Mr. Bruce I. Petrie, for the American Can Company.
Messrs. George, Greek, King & McMahon, for Philip Morris, Inc., and Holland Furnace Company.
Messrs. Marshall, Melhorn, Bloch & Belt and Mr. Lynn H. Gressley, for Champion Spark Plug Company.
Mr. Harry K. Forsyth, Mr. Carlton 8. Dargusch, Mr. Carlton 8. Dargusch, Jr., and Mr. Jack H. Bertsch, for Copeland Refrigeration Corporation.
Mr. William 8axbe and Mr. Mark McElroy, attorneys general, and Mr. John M. Tobin, for Stanley J. Bowers, Tax Commissioner.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
As to the appeal of the American Can Company, we believe that the syllabus of the Grinnell case, supra, requires the conclusion that the property involved was not in storage because it was "located at the place where it was manufactured into a product."
As to the Tax Commissioner's appeals, all involve very close questions. Apparently, the Board of Tax Appeals endeavored to apply the guides specified in the Grinnell case. We do not believe that the board's conclusions are unreasonable or unlawful.
As to the Copeland appeal, we reach the same conclusion except so far as the conclusions of the Board of Tax Appeals relate to raw materials and semifinished products to be employed in production and to be transported over city streets from separate warehouses a distance of one to two miles. To that extent, the board's decision seems to be inconsistent with parts of the board's prior decisions involved in the Tax Commissioner's appeals in the American Can and Champion cases referred to herein. If, as we are holding, the decisions of the board in those cases were not unreasonable and unlawful, the board should, in order to be consistent and therefore to be reasonable, reconsider the foregoing portion of its decision in the Copeland ease.
Decisions affirmed in eases Nos. 35675, 35676> 35705, 35749 and 35750.
Decision remanded in case No. 35807.
Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Stewart and Taet, JJ., concur.