Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2006, the City of Cincinnati filed an application for exemption from real-property tax for property that constituted part of the City’s convention center. The tax commissioner granted the exemption for 2006 but denied it for subsequent years. While the City’s appeal was pending at the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA), new legislation was enacted that provided an exemption in the present situation. Therefore, the BTA remanded the case to the tax commissioner. While the 2006 exemption application was again pending before the tax commissioner, the Cincinnati City School District Board of Education attempted to intervene as a party. The tax commissioner denied the school board’s motion to intervene and, pursuant to the newly enacted legislation, granted the exemption for 2007 and later years. The school board appealed. The BTA dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the school board lacked standing to appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the BTA acted reasonably and lawfully in determining that the school board lacked standing to appeal because of its failure to comply with Ohio Rev. Code 5715.27(C). View "Cincinnati City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Testa" on Justia Law

A property owner (Taxpayer) filed a complaint for tax year 2010, asking for a reduction from the auditor’s value of its property. The Cuyahoga County Board of Revision (BOR) dismissed Taxpayer’s complaint. Taxpayer then filed a complaint challenging the valuation for tax year 2011. Ohio Rev. Code 5715.19(A)(2) generally prohibits the filing of a second complaint within the same interim period, with certain exceptions, and the 2010 and 2011 tax years were part of the same interim period between the 2009 update and the 2012 reappraisal in Cuyahoga County. Taxpayer argued that two exceptions to the general rule applied in this case. The Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) disagreed and held that neither applied. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the filing of Taxpayer’s tax-year-2011 complaint came within the exception in Ohio Rev. Code 5715.19(A)(2)(a), and the filing therefore invoked the jurisdiction of the BOR. Remanded. View "Soyko Kulchystsky, LLC v. Bd. of Revision" on Justia Law

In 2009, the Harrison County Board of Revision (BOR) issued two orders purporting to determine the value of two parcels owned by L.J. Smith, Inc. However, the BOR did not certify a transcript showing the filing of the complaint. Smith prosecuted an appeal to the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) challenging the valuation. The BTA remanded the case to the BOR with instructions to vacate its decision, concluding that “nothing in the record demonstrated that Smith did, in fact, file a complaint” with the BOR. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the presumption of regularity was rebutted by the BOR’s failure to certify a transcript under these circumstances, and therefore, the BTA should not have relied on that presumption; but (2) the BTA acted reasonably and lawfully in deeming the evidence of filing to be insufficient and in vacating the BOR order. View "L.J. Smith, Inc. v. Harrison County Bd. of Revision" on Justia Law

In tax year 2007, a county fiscal officer valued an improved 6.415-acre parcel in the county at $8,740,000, consistent with the property's 2004 sale price. The property owner filed an amended complaint seeking a reduction to $3,100,000. The board of revision issued a decision retaining the fiscal officer’s valuation of the property. The owner and the school board of education both appealed. Before the board of tax appeals (BTA), the parties presented competing appraisals. The BTA accepted the owner’s appraisal and assigned a value of $3,100,000. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the school board did not show that the BTA’s acceptance of the valuation presented by the owner was unlawful or unreasonable; and (2) the record supported the BTA’s decision.View "Health Care REIT, Inc. v. Cuyahoga County Bd. of Revision" on Justia Law

The county auditor assigned an aggregate value for four properties of $468,470 for the tax year 2008, which represented a significant increase over the aggregate valuation of the parcels’ two ancestor parcels. After a hearing before the county board of revision (BOR), the aggregate valuation of the four parcels changed to $383,180. The Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) reversed, holding that the sale price of $135,000 from a 2006 transaction was the best evidence of value of the four parcels on the tax-lien date for tax year 2008. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the 2006 purchase of the two ancestor parcels was not recent to the 2008 tax lien date because Appellant changed the character of the property when it split the two parcels into four total parcels in 2007.View "Richman Props., LLC v. Medina County Bd. of Revision" on Justia Law

East Bank Condominiums II, LLC filed valuation complaints challenging the county auditor’s assessment of twenty-one units in a condominium complex owned by East Bank. The county auditor valued each unit as a separate parcel. The Dublin City Schools Board of Education filed countercomplaints seeking to retain the auditor’s valuations. The Board of Revision (BOR) disagreed with the assessment and accepted the bulk-appraisal valuation that East Bank submitted. The Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) reinstated the county auditor’s valuations. The Supreme Court reversed the BTA, holding that the BTA erred in reverting back to the auditor’s determination of value. The school board moved for reconsideration. The Supreme Court granted in part the school board’s motion, holding (1) the BTA was correct in rejecting East Bank’s bulk-appraisal valuation for the units; but (2) the BTA was incorrect in adopting the auditor’s valuations. Remanded to the BTA for an independent determination of value.View "Dublin City Schs. Bd. of Educ. v. Franklin County Bd. of Revision" on Justia Law

James Navratil Development Company (JNDC) filed a valuation complaint. The Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) remanded the cause and ordered the Medina County Board of Revision to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction because JNDC did not properly identify itself as the owner of the property on the face of the complaint. JNDC appealed. While the parties were filing briefs in the appeal, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Groveport Madison Local Schs. Bd. of Educ. v. Franklin County Bd. of Revision, in which the Court held that it is not a jurisdictional requirement to correctly name the owner of the subject property in a valuation complaint. On the authority of Groveport Madison, the Supreme Court reversed the BTA’s decision, holding that the defect in the complaint was not jurisdictional, and the BTA erred in holding that it was. Remanded.View "James Navratil Dev. Co. v. Medina County Bd. of Revision" on Justia Law

In 2005, real property owned by Roger and Sharon Barkoff was sold for $1.4 million. In 2008, after performing the reappraisal that the law required every six years, the Summit County Fiscal Officer determined the value of the property to be $902,320. The Akron City School District Board of Education challenged the assessment, asserting that the 2005 sale price should be adopted as the value of the property. The Summit County Board of Revision retained the fiscal officer’s value. The Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) reversed, concluding that the Barkoffs had not rebutted the presumption that the sale was within a reasonable time before the tax-lien date, therefore adopting the $1.4 million sale price from 2005 as the value of the property for tax year 2008. The Supreme Court reversed the BTA’s application of the recency presumption, holding that when a property has been the subject of the reappraisal that occurs every six years, a sale that occurred more than twenty-four months before the lien date should not be presumed recent if a different value has been determined for that lien date as part of the reappraisal, and thus no presumption arises that the sale price reflects the property’s value.View "Akron City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Summit County Bd. of Revision" on Justia Law

Panther II Transportation, Inc. (Appellee) requested refunds for tax years 2005 and 2006, claiming that state law exempted it from the imposition of a local income tax on its net profit. The Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) concluded that state law preempted local tax on net profits as applied to “motor transportation companies” that are subject to state taxes, fees, and regulatory requirements, as was Appellee. The court of appeals affirmed. The Central Collection Agency and its tax administrator and the Seville Board of Income Tax Review appealed, arguing that the state law at issue did not preclude the imposition of generally applicable local income taxes. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the BTA and court of appeals correctly determined that the local tax on corporate net profits was preempted by state law.View "Panther II Transp., Inc. v. Seville Bd. of Income Tax Review" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was a commercial building consisting of a warehouse and office space. The tax year at issue was 2005. The property owner disagreed with the auditor’s valuation of the subject property and filed a complaint seeking a reduction. Before the Board of Revision (BOR) the owner presented a value using the income approach as an “owner’s opinion of value.” The BOR found the valuation evidence “competent, credible, and probative” and adopted the value suggested by that approach. The Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) reinstated the auditor’s determination of value, determining that the income-approach valuation did not qualify as an admissible owner’s opinion and was not probative evidence of value in any event. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the BTA, holding (1) certain expert testimony coupled with the income-approach valuation was competent evidence of value; and (2) the BTA may not revert to the auditor’s value when the BOR relied on competent evidence. View "Worthington City Schs. Bd. of Educ. v. Bd. of Revision" on Justia Law