I found it, thanks. let me work on it. :-)
1. What was the issue in the case?
The case involves appellants seeking a tax refund for taxes they had paid during a certain period of tax years when they were shareholders of particular companies
2. How did the Court decide the issue?
The appellants argument is flawed by the court
3. What was the Court's reasoning for its decision?
The appellants’ argument is flawed because it assumes that distributive income from an S corporation is nonbusiness income.
4. What were the facts against the issue
This characterization ignores the true nature of the income that appellants receive from their S corporations. Section 1366(b), Title 26, U.S. Code indicates that the character of the item distributed to a shareholder is to be determined as if the item were realized from the source from which the corporation realized the item. Thus, business income generated by an S corporation retains its status as business income as it passes through to the shareholders. As business income, it is apportioned under R.C. 5747 1 for taxation in Ohio. Thus, we reject appellants’ fourth proposition of law?
5. Do you agree with the court's decision? Explain.
I agree with the court’s decision because one of the appellants argument ignore that taxpayer’s income tax liability is measured on the basis of taxpayer’s gross income
Content will be erased after question is completed.