Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2009, Kent Cunningham filed an “Affidavit of Non-Ohio Domicile” for tax year 2008 declaring that he was “not domiciled in Ohio” at any during during the tax year. The tax commissioner issued Kent and his wife an assessment based upon the nonfiling and nonpayment of Ohio income tax for 2008. The Cunninghams filed a petition for reassessment. Noting a 2008 filing of an Ohio homestead-exemption application declaring that the Cunninghams’ Cincinnati, Ohio house was their principal place of residence, the commissioner concluded that the Cunninghams’ Affidavit of Non-Ohio Domicile contained a false statement and that the Cunninghams failed to rebut the presumption of Ohio domicile. The Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) reversed the commissioner’s determination with regard to Kent, concluding that Kent complied with the requirements of Ohio Rev. Code 5747.24(B)(1) and was, therefore, “irrefutably presumed to be not domiciled in Ohio for Ohio individual income tax purposes.” The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Kent’s explicit claim under section 5747.24(B)(1) to be domiciled outside Ohio did not bind the commissioner without regard to other statements and actions by Kent that indicated a domicile inside Ohio; and (2) the BTA erred by reversing the tax commissioner’s denial of the irrebuttable presumption created under section 5747.24(B)(1). View "Cunningham v. Testa" on Justia Law

Landowners filed a complaint with the Auglaize County Board of Revision (BOR) challenging the auditor’s valuation of their property. The BOR notified Landowners that a hearing would be held. Neither Landowners nor anyone on their behalf appeared at the hearing. The BOR dismissed the valuation complaint for failure to prosecute based on Landowners’ failure to attend the scheduled hearing. The Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) reversed, concluding that the BOR had exceeded its discretionary authority in dismissing the complaint because the evidence presented raised the presumption that the sale furnished the criterion of value. The Supreme Court vacated the BTA’s decision, holding (1) BORs do not have the discretionary authority to dismiss a complaint based on the complainant’s failure to attend the scheduled meeting of the board; and (2) a BOR must make a determination of value whenever a complaint properly invokes its jurisdiction. Remanded. View "Ginter v. Auglaize County Bd. of Revision" on Justia Law

Grace Cathedral filed an exemption application for the tax year 2010 pertaining to additional buildings added to an exempt church parcel. Regarding the building at issue in this appeal, Grace Cathedral stated that the building would be “made available to visitors in need to temporary housing, free of charge, while they visit the church to participate in worship services.” The tax commissioner denied Grace Cathedral’s claimed exemptions. The Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) upheld that determination. The Supreme Court reversed, concluding that, under the circumstances of this case, the building’s use in facilitating attendance at religious services qualified for exemption under Faith Fellowship Ministries, Inc. v. Limbach. View "Grace Cathedral, Inc. v. Testa" on Justia Law

The City of Cincinnati owned several golf courses that were operated under a management contract by a private, for-profit contractor. Paul Macke, a private golf-course operator who owned taxable real property, challenged the ongoing exemption of the golf courses as public property used exclusively for a public purpose in complaints filed in 2009 and 2010. In each case, the tax commissioner granted the complaint and denied exemption. The City appealed. The Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) consolidated the cases and reversed the tax commissioner’s denial of exemptions. The tax commissioner appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the BTA acted reasonably and lawfully by determining that the City did not forfeit its exemption under Ohio Rev. code 5709.08(A) when it hired a private management company to manage its golf courses. View "City of Cincinnati v. Testa" on Justia Law

Appellant, a retired professional football player, was employed by the Indiana Colts of the National Football League (NFL) during the taxable year of 2008. During the 2008 season, Appellant neither played in nor attended the one game the Colts played in Cleveland. The Colts nevertheless withheld an amount of Cleveland municipal income tax from Appellant’s 2008 compensation and paid it to the city. Appellant sought from Cleveland’s tax administration authority a refund of income tax withheld and remitted to Cleveland for tax year 2008, arguing that the city had no authority to impose its tax on the income of a nonresident who did not work within Cleveland’s city limits during the taxable year. Appellant’s claim for a full refund was denied. The City of Cleveland Board of Review and the Board of Tax Appeals upheld the denial. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Cleveland lacked authority under its city ordinance and its regulations to impose a tax on Appellant’s income, given that none of the services for which he was compensated were performed in Cleveland during 2008. Remanded with instructions that Appellant be granted a full refund of Cleveland municipal income tax paid for 2008. View "Saturday v. Cleveland Bd. of Review" on Justia Law

Appellant, a former linebacker for the Chicago Bears, filed applications for refunds of income taxes paid to Cleveland for tax years 2004 through 2006. A nonresident of Cleveland, Appellant asserted that Cleveland had adopted an unlawful method of computing the amount of his compensation that was subject to its city income tax. Appellant’s applications were denied. The City of Cleveland Board of Review and the Board of Tax Appeals upheld the denials. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that although Cleveland has the right to tax the compensation earned by a nonresident professional athlete for his work performed in Cleveland, the city’s method of allocating income violates the due-process rights of National Football League players such as Appellant. View "Hillenmeyer v. Cleveland Bd. of Review" on Justia Law

A property owner appealed a valuation of its real property. After the Board of Tax Appeals issued its decision on August 29, 2013, the property owner appealed. The notice of appeal was filed on September 30, 2013, but the property owner failed to initiate service of the notice of appeal on the tax commissioner. On October 24, 2013, the property owner served the tax commissioner with the appeal. On November 4, 2013, the appeal was returned from mediation to the regular docket. That order specified that Appellant’s brief was due forty days from the date of the order. On November 12, 2013, the school board filed a motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the property owner failed to initiate service of the notice of appeal on the tax commissioner, a necessary party, within the thirty-day appeal period. View "Columbus City Schs. Bd. of Educ. v. Franklin County Bd. of Revision" on Justia Law

The Indian Hill Exempted Village School District Board of Education (BOE) passed a resolution to convert 1.25 inside mills from operating levies to permanent-improvement levies. The conversion had the effect of increasing the effective rate of taxation under the “outside millage,” resulting in the district experiencing a net increase of revenue and the district’s taxpayers experiencing an increased burden. The Hamilton County Budget Commission approved to the conversion of the inside mills. The Board of Tax Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because the BOE did not demonstrate that the revenue derived from the increased effective rate of taxation under the outside mills was necessary to cover operating expenses during the ensuing fiscal year, the BOE did not meet the requirements of Ohio Rev. Code 5705.341. View "Sanborn v. Hamilton County Budget Comm’n" on Justia Law

Canal Winchester MOB, LLC (“MOB”), the ground lessee of a medical office building, filed a complaint challenging the tax-year-2010 valuation of the building. The Board of Revision retained the auditor’s valuation. MOB, together with the record owner of the property, appealed. In its decision, the Board of Tax Appeals (“BTA”) sua sponte considered the jurisdictional validity of the complaint and held that MOB did not have standing to file the complaint. Accordingly, the BTA ordered dismissal. The Supreme Court vacated the BTA’s decision, holding that the BTA should have afforded MOB the opportunity to plead and prove its standing. Remanded. View "Diley Ridge Med. Ctr. v. Fairfield County Bd. of Revision" on Justia Law

This case involved the tax-year-2009 value of a parcel of property and presented the question of whether an auction sale price can ever be regarded as evidence of a property’s value and, if so, under what circumstances. The Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) found that the auction sale in this case was a voluntary, arm’s-length transaction, and therefore, that the sale price was the best evidence of the true value of the property. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Ohio Rev. Code 5713.04, read in conjunction with former Ohio Rev. Code 5713.03, requires the taxing authorities to presume that an auction sale price is not a voluntary, arm’s-length transaction, but that presumption may be rebutted by evidence that a particular sale was in fact voluntary and did occur at arm’s length; and (2) the record supported the BTA’s finding that this particular auction sale was voluntary and occurred at arm’s length. View "Olentangy Local Sch. Bd. of Educ. v. Delaware County Bd. of Revision" on Justia Law