The Buckeye Institute, a public policy think tank based in Ohio, has expressed disappointment over the recent ruling by the Ohio Supreme Court in the case of Schaad v. Alder. The case, which was argued by Robert Alt, the president and CEO of The Buckeye Institute, challenged the expansion of municipal taxing authority in the city of Cincinnati.
In his response to the ruling, Alt stated, "The court's ruling is disappointing. Local taxing authorities should be able to tax only within their own jurisdictions—where people live and actually perform the work. There will be other opportunities for the Ohio Supreme Court to recognize those limitations."
Jay R. Carson, a senior litigator with The Buckeye Institute, also expressed his disappointment with the court's decision, saying, "Throughout this case, the city of Cincinnati made the argument that an expansion of municipal taxing authority was instead a limitation. Unfortunately, a majority of the court accepted that misguided argument. As the dissenting justices noted, while the General Assembly's authority over tax policy is broad, it is not unlimited."
The Buckeye Institute has been involved in several other municipal income tax cases, including Buckeye v. Kilgore, Morsy v. Dumas, Curcio v. Hufford, Kresevic v. Chittok, and Denison v. Kilgore. These cases highlight the Institute's commitment to challenging the expansion of municipal taxing authority and advocating for limitations on local taxing jurisdictions.
While the ruling in Schaad v. Alder may be a setback for The Buckeye Institute, they remain hopeful that future opportunities will arise for the Ohio Supreme Court to recognize the importance of limiting municipal taxing authority to ensure fair and equitable taxation.
The Buckeye Institute's efforts in this case and others demonstrate their dedication to protecting taxpayers' rights and advocating for sensible tax policies. As the legal battles continue, it will be interesting to see how the court's decisions shape the future of municipal income tax in Ohio.