Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2011, Appellant purchased a two-family dwelling from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for $5,000. The Cuyahoga County fiscal officer valued the property at $126,800 for tax year 2011. Appellant sought a reduction to $30,000. The County Board of Revision retained the fiscal officer’s valuation. The Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the BTA acted unreasonably when it found that the property’s 2011 sale price was not the best evidence of its tax year 2011 value. Remanded with instructions that the $5,000 sale price be used as the property’s value for tax year 2011. View "Schwartz v. Cuyahoga County Bd. of Revision" on Justia Law

Appellant in this appeal contested twenty-seven assessments of delinquent sales tax. Appellant’s liability derived from previous assessments against a pet store business of which Appellant was co-owner and an officer. The Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) affirmed the tax commissioner’s determination upholding the assessments against Appellant. Appellant argued on appeal that she may contest the validity of the service of the assessments against the corporation as a defense against her derivative liability. The Supreme Court agreed. Noting that the record in this case documented successful service as to seven of the twenty-seven assessments but did not show completed service of the others, the Supreme Court affirmed the BTA’s decision to uphold the seven assessments as to which completed service was shown. The Court then vacated the BTA’s decision with regard to the other twenty assessments, holding that a successful challenge to the service on the corporation will invalidate the derivative-liability assessment against the responsible individual. Remanded with instructions that the BTA take additional evidence and determine whether service of those twenty assessments was perfected on the corporation. View "Cruz v. Testa" on Justia Law

This case originated with the question of whether, for tax year 2006, the present value of William MacDonald’s future annuity payments qualified as taxable wages or as a pension under a Shaker Heights ordinance that exempts pensions from the municipal income tax. The tax administrator and the municipal tax board held that the amount at issue was subject to municipal income tax. The Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) reversed. The court of appeals affirmed. The city of Shaker Heights appealed, arguing that the BTA violated a duty of deference to the determination of the municipal tax board. Specifically, the city argued that when the legislature enacted Ohio Rev. Code 5717.011, authorizing appeal to the BTA in addition to the preexisting right of appeal to the common pleas courts under Ohio Rev. Code 2506, the legislature must have intended that the BTA review decisions of the municipal tax boards using the same standard of review that applies under chapter 2506. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals, holding (1) the BTA’s standard of review under section 5717.011 is de novo as to both facts and law; and (2) the BTA in this case properly exercised its own independent judgment in determining the facts and the law. View "MacDonald v. Shaker Heights Bd. of Income Tax Review" on Justia Law

In this appeal, Navistar, Inc. claimed it was due a credit against the new commercial-activity tax (CAT), which was enacted to replace to replace the existing corporate-franchise and personal property taxes for industrial corporations like Navistar. In 2007, Navistar, Inc. undertook a restatement of its 2004 financial restatement, which increased Navistar’s valuation allowance from 62.4 percent to 100 percent. As a consequence, the tax commissioner reduced the amount of Navistar’s potential CAT credit from over $27 million to zero. The Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) affirmed the tax commissioner’s decision. The Supreme Court vacated the BTA’s decision, holding that the tax commissioner’s use of Navistar’s restated valuation allowance as the basis for the final determination was justified only if the restate valuation allowance was a correction of error, which could be the case here only if Navistar’s original valuation allowance was not in compliance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). Remanded for a determination of whether the original valuation allowance was in compliance with GAAP based upon all the evidence in the record. View "Navistar, Inc. v. Testa" on Justia Law

The Metamore Elevator Company filed complaints with the Fulton County Board of Revision (BOR) seeking to reduce the property value of two parcels and to remove grain storage bins from the real property assessment, claiming that they were business fixtures and thus should be classified as personal property not subject to real estate tax. The BOR left the assessed valuation unchanged. The Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) reversed, concluding that the storage bins were temporary structures and should be classified as personal property. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the BTA correctly applied the statues when it found that the grain storage bins were personal property. View "Metamora Elevator Co. v. Fulton County Bd. of Revision" on Justia Law

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