Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

At issue was whether Intermessage Communications and members of a proposed class of retail cellular-telephone-service subscribers seeking to recover treble damages under Ohio Rev. Code 4905.61 for regulatory violations related to the wholesale cellular-service market committed in the 1990s, as determined by the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO), had standing to bring this action.The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Eighth District Court of Appeals affirming the trial court’s decision to certify the class and dismissed this matter, holding that Intermessage and the proposed class of retail cellular-service subscribers lacked standing to bring an action pursuant to section 4905.61 because the language of the statute limits recovery of treble damages to the “person, firm, or corporation” directly injured as a result of the “violation, failure, or omission” found by the PUCO. View "Satterfield v. Ameritech Mobile Communications, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) that the service provided by Seaton Corporation to Kal Kan Foods, Inc. was not a taxable “employment service” under Ohio Rev. Code 5739.01(B)(3)(k) and 5739.01(JJ) was reasonable and lawful.Seaton agreed to furnish, manage and supervise supplemental staffing to assist in production operations at Kal Kan’s manufacturing plant in Columbus, Ohio. The tax commission levied a sales-tax assessment against Seaton and a use-tax assessment against Kal Kan. The BTA found that the service at issue was not taxable because Seaton, not Kal Kan, supervised and controlled the workers that Seaton supplied to Kal Kan’s plant. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the BTA properly analyzed which entity exercised supervision or control over the work performed by Seaton’s workers at Kal Kan’s plant, and those factual findings were supported by the record; and (2) therefore, the BTA’s decision was reasonable and lawful. View "Seaton Corp. v. Testa" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the board of tax appeals (BTA) affirming the tax commissioner’s denial of a charitable-use property-tax exemption for the subject property, holding that the BTA’s factual findings were supported by the record in this case.Chagrin Realty, the property owner, was a nonprofit organization exempt from federal income tax under 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(2). Chagrin leased the property to Community Dialysis Center (CDC), a nonprofit tenant, which operated a hemodialysis facility on the property. The Centers for Dialysis Care, Inc., a for-profit management company, contracted with the CDC and employed the personnel who worked for the CC. Chagrin Realty filed an application for real-property-tax exemption relating to the subject property, but the tax commissioner determined that Chagrin Realty did not satisfy the requirements for exemption under Ohio Rev. Code 5709.12 or 5709.121. The BTA affirmed, thus rejecting Chagrin Realty’s contention that its 501(c)(2) federal tax status and its reliance on vicarious-exemption theories qualified it as a “charitable” institution. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the BTA reasonably and lawfully found that Chagrin Realty is not a charitable institution. View "Chagrin Realty, Inc. v. Testa" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) rejecting the method of valuation espoused by an appraiser for the property owner, HCP EMOH, LLC, to derive an opinion of value for an assisted-living facility and instead adopting the valuation reached by an appraiser for the Washington County Board of Revision (BOR) and Washington County Auditor (collectively, the county), holding that the BTA erred in adopting the county’s appraisal.The property at issue consisted of two parcels constituting almost seven acres of land and was improved with a one-story assisted-living facility. At issue was how an appraiser should separate the family’s business value from the value of the realty. HCP’s appraiser relied on apartment comparable to reach a value for the property. The county, however, relied on data from the assisted-living-facility market. The Supreme Court vacated the BTA’s decision, holding (1) case law permits but does not require consideration of apartment comparable; but (2) the county’s appraiser was not scrupulous in selecting data that led him to value the business rather than the realty. View "HCP EMOH, LLC v. Washington County Board of Revision" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) dismissing Appellants’ appeal from a decision of the Cuyahoga County Board of Revision (BOR) because it found that Appellants failed to timely file a notice of appeal with the BOR in accordance with Ohio Rev. Code 5717.01, holding that the BTA properly dismissed the appeal.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) to perfect an appeal of a county board of revision’s decision to the BTA, a notice of appeal must be timely filed with both the BTA and the BOR; (2) Appellants did not timely file a notice of appeal with the BOR as required by section 5717.01; and (3) the BTA was not required to convene an evidentiary hearing, and therefore, Appellants’ claim of a constitutional due-process violation was unfounded. View "Ross v. Cuyahoga County Board of Revision" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Public Utilities Commission that approved a charge referred to as the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) Rider as a component of Ohio Power Company’s third electric-security plan (ESP), holding that the order was not unlawful or unreasonable.Specifically, the Court held (1) the PPA Rider did not recover unlawful transition revenue; (2) the challenges to the Commission’s approval of the PPA Rider under the ESP statute, Ohio Rev. Code 4928.143, were without merit; (3) the challenges to the Commission’s approval of the joint stipulation to resolve the issues in the PPA Rider case failed; and (4) the Commission complied with Ohio Rev. Code 4903.09 when it approved the Ohio Valley Electric Corporation-only PPA Rider. View "In re Application of Ohio Power Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal brought by the Office of Ohio Consumers’ Counsel (OCC) and the Ohio Manufacturers’ Association Energy Group (OMAEG) challenging the Public Utility Commission’s decision to approve the third electric-security plan (ESP) of Ohio Power Company, holding that OCC and OMAEG failed to demonstrate prejudice or harm caused by the ESP order.On appeal, OCC and OMAEG argued that the Commission’s approval of the Power Purchase Agreement Ride as a component of the ESP was reversible error. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding (1) OCC failed to demonstrate that ratepayers suffered actual harm or prejudice from the ESP order; and (2) this Court declines to address the claims that ratepayers were at risk of imminent or future harm rising from the ESP order. View "In re Application of Ohio Power Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) affirming the decision of the tax commissioner, holding that the sale-for-resale exemption of Ohio Rev. Code 5739.01(E) applied to preclude Cincinnati Reds, LLC (the Reds) from having to pay use tax on promotional items it purchased.The tax commissioner denied the Reds’ request to remove the promotional items from the use-tax assessment, concluding that there was no evidence that the promotional items were resold with admission to games. The BTA affirmed, finding that the promotional items were given away for free and that the cost of the promotional items was not included in the ticket price. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) consideration is given in exchange for the Reds’ agreement to supply fans with the promotional items, and therefore, the transfer of promotional items to fans constitutes a “sale” under section 5739.01(B)(1); and (2) accordingly, the promotional items were subject to the sale-for-resale exemption of section 5739.01(E). View "Cincinnati Reds, LLC v. Testa" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied the writ of mandamus sought by Mars Urban Solutions, LLC and Michael Majeski seeking to compel the Cuyahoga County fiscal officer and Cuyahoga County Board of Revision (BOR) to comply with a judgment of the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) that reduced the 2010 value of a property that Majeski owned and later conveyed to Mars Urban, holding that a writ was not warranted in this case.The Court reached its conclusion after noting that 2012 was the first year of a new sexennium, and any dispute that Mars Urban and Majeski had pertaining to the property value for any year beyond 2011 should have been filed as a new and separate claim for each year. The Court also held that the fiscal officer and the BOR submitted sufficient evidence to establish that both entities complied with the BTA’s judgment for tax years 2010 and 2011. Therefore, the Court denied the writ. View "State ex rel. Mars Urban Solutions, LLC v. Cuyahoga County Fiscal Officer" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) affirming the tax commissioner’s denial of Willoughby Hills Development and Distribution, Inc.’s (WHDD) request for a commercial-activity-tax (CAT) refund, holding that WHDD fell short of the requirements necessary for the gross-receipts exclusion to apply.Subject to exclusions, the CAT is levied on each entity with taxable gross receipts above a certain threshold for the privilege of doing business in Ohio. At issue was whether WHDD could meet the requirements of the gross-receipts exclusion that applies when a person or entity acts as an agent for another. The tax commissioner concluded that no agency relationship existed and denied the refund claim. The BTA affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that WHDD did not meet the CAT statute’s definition of “agent.” View "Willoughby Hills Development & Distribution, Inc. v. Testa" on Justia Law