Newman v. Levin

120 Ohio St. 3d 127 (Ohio 2008) · Supreme Court of Ohio · October 9, 2008

Summary

The Ohio Supreme Court reviewed a Board of Tax Appeals decision concerning whether equipment at the J.M. Stuart Electric Generating Station qualified for a thermal-efficiency-improvement tax exemption under former R.C. 5709.46. The court affirmed the BTA’s decision regarding the auditor’s appeal, holding that ineligible items in an application did not deprive the agencies of jurisdiction and declining to review certain arguments that were not properly preserved. The court reversed the BTA’s denial of an exemption for the circulating-water system because the record did not support that determination.

Holdings

  1. The inclusion of some equipment installed on or before December 31, 1974, did not deprive the Tax Commissioner or the BTA of jurisdiction to certify equipment installed after the cutoff date and otherwise eligible for exemption.
  2. The BTA and the Supreme Court of Ohio lacked jurisdiction to consider issues not explicitly and precisely identified in the applicable notice of appeal.
  3. The party appealing to the BTA bears the burden of proving that the Tax Commissioner's determination was clearly unreasonable or unlawful; strict construction of tax exemptions does not require the BTA to apply a strict-scrutiny standard or view all evidence most strongly against the exemption.
  4. The circulating-water system qualified for exemption under former R.C. 5709.46 because it was an integral and necessary part of the exempt condenser and improved thermal efficiency by facilitating condensation, reducing turbine backpressure, and reducing fuel consumption.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether including equipment installed before December 31, 1974, in the utilities' applications deprived the Tax Commissioner or the BTA of jurisdiction to certify otherwise eligible equipment.
  2. Whether the auditor could obtain review of arguments concerning waste-heat recovery and the equipment's primary purpose when those issues were not specified in the notice of appeal to the BTA or this court.
  3. Whether the BTA applied the proper standard of review to the Tax Commissioner's exemption determination.
  4. Whether the BTA's denial of an exemption for the circulating-water system was supported by the record and was reasonable and lawful.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (19)

  • Cincinnati Gas & Elec. Co. v. Kosydar, 38 Ohio St. 2d 71, 310 N.E.2d 245 (1974)(followed)
  • Cousino Constr. Co. v. Wilkins, 108 Ohio St. 3d 90, 2006-Ohio-162, 840 N.E.2d 1065, ¶ 41(followed)
  • Satullo v. Wilkins, 111 Ohio St. 3d 399, 2006-Ohio-5856, 856 N.E.2d 954, ¶ 23(followed)
  • Cleveland Elec. Illum. Co. v. Lindley, 69 Ohio St. 2d 71, 430 N.E.2d 939 (1982)(followed)
  • Lenart v. Lindley, 61 Ohio St. 2d 110, 399 N.E.2d 1222 (1980)(followed)
  • Osborne Bros. Welding Supply, Inc. v. Limbach, 40 Ohio St. 3d 175, 532 N.E.2d 739 (1988)(followed)
  • Norandex, Inc. v. Limbach, 69 Ohio St. 3d 26, 630 N.E.2d 329 (1994)(followed)
  • Cincinnati Community Kollel v. Levin, 113 Ohio St. 3d 138, 2007-Ohio-1249, 863 N.E.2d 147, ¶ 9(followed)
  • Athens Cty. Aud. v. Wilkins, 106 Ohio St. 3d 293, 2005-Ohio-4986, 834 N.E.2d 804, ¶ 8(followed)
  • H.R. Options, Inc. v. Wilkins, 102 Ohio St. 3d 1214, 2004-Ohio-2085, 807 N.E.2d 363, ¶ 2(followed)

Showing top 10 of 19.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Download CaseDownload Case DataDownload Case and DataDownload AI Instructions

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Ohio Supreme Court