Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

In 2006, U-Store-It, L.P. acquired several self-storage facilities in Franklin County in a bulk purchase. The Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) adopted the 2006 sale prices as the value of those properties for the 2006 tax year. U-Store-It appealed, arguing (1) the sale involved related parties and thus could not qualify as an arm’s-length transaction for purposes of valuing the properties; and (2) the sale prices could not be used because they included consideration paid for personal property as well as real property. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the BTA acted reasonably and lawfully in adopting the 2006 sale prices as the value of the properties at issue. View "Hilliard City Schs. Bd. of Educ. v. Franklin County Bd. of Revision" on Justia Law

Appellant purchased property in 2004 for $7.4 million. For the tax-year 2006, the County auditor set the value at $8 million. Appellant filed a complaint with the County Board of Revision (BOR) seeking a decrease in value to $5 million, an amount close to the sale price of the property in 2003. After a hearing, the BOR reduced the property value from $8 million to the 2004 sale price of $7.4 million. Appellant appealed to the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA). The BTA upheld the $7.4 million sale price as the best evidence of value. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the BTA’s decision to adopt the $7.4 million sale price from 2004 as the property’s value for the tax-year 2006 was not unreasonable or unlawful. View "HIN, LLC v. Cuyahoga County Bd. of Revision" on Justia Law

Cheryl and John Gallenstein, Kentucky residents, purchased a boat in Indiana. The couple docked their boat in Indiana but chose Cincinnati as the hailing port. In 2003, the Division of Watercraft of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources issued a registration certificate to Cheryl. in 2005, the Ohio tax commissioner assessed a use tax, imposed a penalty, and assessed pre-assessment interest, determining that Cheryl’s use of the boat in Ohio, combined with her declaration of Cincinnati as the boat’s hailing port and her registration of the boat in Ohio created a nexus between the boat and Ohio and that she did not qualify for the transient use exception. The Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the BTA acted unreasonably and unlawfully in affirming the commissioner’s use tax, penalty, and pre-assessment interest because Cheryl qualified for the transient use exception contained in Ohio Rev. Code 5741.02(C)(4). View "Gallenstein v. Testa" on Justia Law

Appellants requested a tax refund from the City of Worthington in connection with municipal income tax they paid on stock-option income earned from 2005 through 2007, as reported on Form 1040, Schedule C of their federal income tax return. The Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) affirmed the denial of Appellants' refund based on its view that Ohio Rev. Code 718.01 governed the case because the City's definition of net profits in former Worthington Codified Ordinance 1701.15, which defined net profit for purposes of the City's income tax for an individual taxpayer "as the individual's profit, other than amounts required to be reported on schedule C," contravened the statutory definition of net profits set forth in section 718.01(A)(7). The Supreme Court reversed and ordered the City to refund the municipal taxes paid by Appellants on Schedule C during the tax years at issue, holding that the decision of the BTA was unreasonable and unlawful because the General Assembly did not exercise its power to limit or restrict the municipal power of taxation through section 718.01, and therefore, the statutory provisions at issue did not preclude the refund. View "Gesler v. City of Worthington Income Tax Bd. of Appeals" on Justia Law

Five income tax assessments were levied against Appellant for the tax years 2003-2007 for Appellant's failure to file returns. Appellant filed reassessment petitions, which the tax commissioner denied. The Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) dismissed Appellant's appeal, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to address the errors Appellant specified in his notices of appeal because those errors had not been raised before the tax commissioner. In so concluding, the BTA rejected another jurisdictional argument raised by the commissioner, namely, that because Appellant had not paid the assessment, the tax commissioner had lacked jurisdiction to hear Appellant's reassessment petitions. The BTA concluded, rather, that the prepayment provision of Ohio Rev. Code 5747.13(E)(3) was triggered by a failure to file tax returns and that Appellant had in fact filed returns for the tax years at issue. The Supreme Court reversed the BTA's ruling that the prepayment requirement did not apply in this case, vacated the remainder of the BTA's decision, and remanded with instructions that the reassessment petitions be dismissed for lack of prepayment. View "Abraitis v. Testa" on Justia Law