|
JOHNSON APPLAUDS U.S. SUPREME COURT'S DECISION IN SUPPORT OF BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 15, 2006
Columbus, OH -- Lt. Governor Bruce Johnson today spoke out in support of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the State of Ohio's appeal in the Daimler Chrysler v. Cuno case. The appeal followed a September 2004, ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit that Ohio's Machinery & Equipment Investment Tax Credit (M&E) violated the U.S. Constitution's commerce clause.
"A cloud over Ohio has been lifted in today's unanimous decision by the U.S. Supreme Court," said Lt. Governor Johnson, who also serves as state development director. "With its ruling, the Supreme Court has enabled states to pursue economic development projects by offering incentives to companies without the lingering concern that they may be found to be unconstitutional."
"We have advanced Ohio's business development landscape with sweeping tort and tax reform, and we are seeing a string of impressive victories that are bringing significant new investment and new jobs to the state. Just last week, Whirlpool Corporation announced that it will bring more than 1,100 jobs to Ohio, due in part to the state's new tax structure."
"The significance of today's decision will undoubtedly have a positive impact on not only Ohio's ability to set itself apart when competing for new investments, but will also positively impact incentive programs used by states nationwide. I'm confident that the improvements we have made in the past two years, along with the confidence exhibited by this decision, will illustrate Ohio's position as a premiere business location."
Since it's inception in 1995, Ohio's M&E Tax Credit has enabled thousands of companies to invest more than $31.6 billion in new plants and equipment. Companies like Daimler Chrysler will continue to benefit from the M&E Tax Credit until it is fully phased out in 2008, as provided by Ohio's comprehensive tax reform of 2005.
The U.S. Supreme Court heard the State's oral arguments regarding the case on March 1, 2006.
-30-
|