# Twyman Films, Inc. v. Lindley

> Ohio Supreme Court · May 3, 1978 · 54 Ohio St. 2d 176

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6756282

## Case

- **Full name:** Twyman Films, Inc. v. Lindley, Tax Commr.
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** May 3, 1978
- **Citations:** 54 Ohio St. 2d 176; 8 Ohio Op. 3d 165; 375 N.E.2d 428; 1978 Ohio LEXIS 543
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** Brown, Celebrezze, Cock, Cole, Cook, Eleventh, Herbert, Locher, Neill, Sweeney, Third
- **Cited by:** 2 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6756282

## Opinion text

Per Curiam.
The principal controversy between the parties is the inclusion by the commissioner of the cost -of' the license agreements in determining the value of appellant’s film library.
A case closely in point is Michael Todd Co. v. County of Los Angeles (1962), 57 Cal. 2d 684 , 371 P. 2d 340 , which concerned the valuation for property tax purposes of the *178 negatives to the movie “Around The World In Eighty Days.” The court stated at page 696:
“* * * But it does not follow * * * that as a matter of tax law the ‘market value’ of the negatives — which cost some $5,000,000 to produce and had a potential earning power of many millions of dollars — was simply their salvage or scrap value of $1,000. The record established, rather, that for the purpose of -determining, ‘full cash value’ there was no actual marhet for the negatives without plaintiff’s copyright therein. The sole beneficial or productive use of the negative film of a motion picture is for making prints thereof for exhibition, whether such prints be sold or leased. * * (Emphasis sic.)
For tax purposes, appellant Twyman Films did not report in its tax returns the value of the film library at its “book value.” Appellant in fact only reported a value calculated by its accountant on a basis unrelated to what appellant had paid for the right to use the copyrighted films in its business.
■This court does not find the decision of the board to be either unreasonable or unlawful, and it is therefore affirmed. •
Decision affirmed.
O’Neill, C. J., Herbert, Celebrezze, W. Brown, Cole, Cock and Locher, JJ., concur.
• Cole, J., of the.Third Appellate District, sitting for P. Brown, J.
Cook, J., of the Eleventh Appellate District, sitting for Sweeney, J.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6756282. Public record. Not legal advice.