Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the valuation of real property that was purchased together with a restaurant business and related personal property. It held that the Board of Tax Appeals acted unreasonably and unlawfully by using the entire aggregate purchase price as the real property’s value after rejecting the Board of Revision’s unexplained allocation. The court ordered the property’s tax-year-2007 value modified to $160,000 based on the mortgage amount and other corroborating evidence.
Holdings
- When a taxpayer has consistently argued for an allocation of an aggregate purchase price, the applicable standard is whether the record contains corroborating indicia or the best available evidence supporting the allocation; the heightened unequivocal-establishment standard applies only in the circumstances addressed by the cited plain-error precedent.
- The Board of Tax Appeals acted unreasonably and unlawfully by reinstating the entire $325,000 aggregate purchase price as the value of the real property when the transaction plainly included personal-property and intangible assets and the record negated use of the entire price as the realty value.
- When the record negates the validity of the county's valuation, the BTA has a legal duty to determine whether the record permits an independent valuation and, if so, to perform that valuation rather than presume the validity of the Board of Revision's figure or merely adopt a party's proposed value.
- The real property's value for tax year 2007 was $160,000.
Questions Presented
- Whether the Board of Tax Appeals applied the correct standard in determining whether the aggregate purchase price should be allocated between the real property and the personal property and other assets.
- Whether the Board of Tax Appeals acted unreasonably or unlawfully by reinstating the entire $325,000 aggregate purchase price as the value of the real property.
- Whether the record permitted an independent valuation of the real property and, if so, what value was supported by the evidence.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (20)
- Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision v. Fodor, 15 Ohio St. 2d 52, 239 N.E.2d 25 (1968), syllabus(followed)
- Satullo v. Wilkins, 111 Ohio St. 3d 399, 2006-Ohio-5856, 856 N.E.2d 954, ¶ 14(followed)
- Gahanna-Jefferson Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Zaino, 93 Ohio St. 3d 231, 232, 754 N.E.2d 789 (2001)(followed)
- Olentangy Local Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Revision, 125 Ohio St. 3d 103, 2010-Ohio-1040, 926 N.E.2d 302, ¶¶ 23-24(distinguished)
- Plain Local Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 130 Ohio St. 3d 230, 2011-Ohio-3362, 957 N.E.2d 268, ¶¶ 20-21(followed)
- St. Bernard Self-Storage, L.L.C. v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision, 115 Ohio St. 3d 365, 2007-Ohio-5249, 875 N.E.2d 85, ¶¶ 15-19(followed)
- Hilliard City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 128 Ohio St. 3d 565, 2011-Ohio-2258, 949 N.E.2d 1, ¶¶ 17-18, 27(followed)
- Cummins Property Servs., L.L.C. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 117 Ohio St. 3d 516, 2008-Ohio-1473, 885 N.E.2d 222, ¶ 13(followed)
- Berea City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 106 Ohio St. 3d 269, 2005-Ohio-4979, 834 N.E.2d 782(followed)
- FirstCal Indus. Acquisitions, L.L.C. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 125 Ohio St. 3d 485, 2010-Ohio-1921, 929 N.E.2d 426, ¶¶ 17-18(followed)
Showing top 10 of 20.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…