| ► Toledo Blade – 06/13/02 – Complaint claims Ohio justices didn’t pay enough taxes |
 |
 |
|
Toledo Blade – June 13, 2002 – Complaint claims Ohio justices didn’t pay enough taxes Blade Columbus Bureau
COLUMBUS – A three-judge panel is examining whether three Ohio Supreme Court justices paid the correct amount of city income taxes to Columbus and other communities where they work.
The review was triggered by a complaint filed with the high court’s disciplinary counsel by former Toledo-area resident David Palmer, a self-described “judicial watchdog.”
Mr. Palmer has said that for 2001, Justice Deborah Cook owes the city of Columbus $603, Justice Robie Resnick $410; and Justice Andy Douglas $990.
Mr. Palmer calculated those amounts based on his estimate of how much time the three justices were working in Columbus and at their residences outside of Columbus. He received expense records through the state’s public records law.
A panel led by state Appeals Court Judge William Wollf of Dayton has asked the three justices how much time they work in Columbus and their other residences. Because the disciplinary counsel works for the Supreme Court, complaints filed against justices are sent to panels of three appeals court judges.
Justice Cook has indicated that her accountant will seek income tax refunds from Akron, where she lives, to make income tax payments to the city of Columbus, where the high court is based.
Justice Resnick, who lives in Ottawa Hills [Toledo bedroom community], has paid the proper amount of income taxes to Ottawa Hills and Columbus, said Rick Dove, the high court’s director of legal and legislative services.
Justice Douglas’ accountant, Jim Hixenbaugh, said he plans to file amended returns for 2000 and 2001 with Columbus and Toledo to reflect that the justice spends 70 percent of his time working in Columbus and 30 percent in Toledo. He said that will involve receiving about $200 from Toledo and then making that payment to the city of Columbus.
Justice Douglas declined comment yesterday, citing the review of the three-judge panel.
|