Struthers thumbs its nose at the law and its citizens in denying tax relief

Struthers thumbs its nose at the law and its citizensin denying tax relief
EDITOR:
I am taking the unusual step of writing to The Vindicator to call necessary attention to the cavalier and arrogant attitude of a local municipality that is flagrantly thumbing its nose at an Ohio law that grants tax relief to individuals who are entitled to certain tax deductions. Before writing this, I have tried to help the city of Struthers learn the recent errors of its ways, only to have its public officials tell me, and worse, faithful taxpayers, to take a hike!
Ohio Revised Code Section 718.01E addresses the deductibility of employee business expenses (Federal Form 2106 expenses) from municipal taxable income. The specific wording in the ORC is: "If an individual's taxable income includes income against which the taxpayer has taken a deduction for federal income tax purposes as reportable on the taxpayer's form 2106, and against which a like deduction has not been allowed by the municipal corporation, the municipal corporation shall deduct from the taxpayer's taxable income an amount equal to the deduction shown on the form against such income, to the extent not otherwise so allowed as a deduction by the municipal corporation."
Struthers has sent notices denying this deduction to various clients of mine, and I can only assume that it was also disallowed for any other Struthers taxpayer trying to claim it. I had no success in trying to persuade the Struthers tax commissioner and the Struthers law director to allow the deduction for my clients. Their position is that the last phrase in the ORC section gives Struthers the right to disallow it.
Specifically, Struthers is saying that the last phrase of the above verbiage should be interpreted as saying, "Municipalities shall allow such deduction to the extent they don't otherwise disallow it." Read the ORC wording again. The correct interpretation of the last phrase is "Municipalities shall allow such deduction to the extent that they don't already allow it." The state auditor's office, the legal division of the Ohio Department of Taxation, the Oho Municipal League and other Ohio Municipal tax commissioners agree with my interpretation of this fairly recent amendment to the ORC. A voicemail message explaining this to the mayor of Struthers has gone unanswered.
Struthers' position is at worst a deliberate misrepresentation to its taxpayers of this fairly new tax legislation, and at best a grossly negligent misrepresentation. Translation: more money for Struthers government, less in its residents' pockets. Unfortunately, the state entities mentioned are not enforcement bodies: Individual taxpayers would have to appeal Struthers' position through due legal process in which the cost of litigation would far exceed the tax savings on a case-by-case basis. I understand that municipal funding cutbacks at both the state and federal level are making it difficult for local governments to function. However, the law is the law, and in this case it is clear. My job is to ensure my clients pay no more than the necessary tax due. I had hoped that Struthers officials would also be willing to act in the best interests of their taxpaying constituents. I guess that's like hoping that the moon would fall out of the sky.
MICHAEL FORTINE
Certified public accountant
Youngstown
Youngstown should emulate Akron; rein in cats and dogs
EDITOR:
I would like to applaud the city of Akron and Judge Brenda Burnham Unruh for enacting their recent decisive and, I'm certain, controversial cat-trapping law.
For years, our mayors and councilmen have been well aware of the many citizen complaints about irresponsible pet owners who have permitted their cats and dogs to roam neighborhoods, defecating and urinating in yards where they aren't welcome, making noise at all hours of the night and day. They have failed miserably to respond to these daily annoyances that many people have to tolerate.
I advise anyone aspiring to be our next mayor to make this a major campaign issue and to promise corrective action. The candidate would be a shoo-in.
RITA EIZONAS
Youngstown