O’Keeffe v. McClain

Summary

The Supreme Court of Ohio held that the entire 325.614-acre parcel used by The Ohio State University to operate the OSU Airport was entitled to exemption from real-property taxation under R.C. 3345.17. The court concluded that the airport had an operational relationship to the university’s educational and research activities and that its public-airport operations supported those programs. The court also held that the property owner bears the burden of proving entitlement to continued exemption under R.C. 5715.271 and rejected the appellant’s arguments concerning changed use and primary use.

Holdings

1. A complaint against continued exemption requires the tax commissioner to determine whether the property currently qualifies under a valid exemption statute; exemption is not defeated merely because the property’s current use differs from an earlier use or because it no longer qualifies under the statute that supported an earlier exemption.
2. The property owner bears the burden of proving entitlement to a continued property-tax exemption, even when the owner is defending against a complaint to discontinue exemption.
3. The entire OSU Airport parcel qualifies for exemption under R.C. 3345.17 because it is state property held for OSU’s use and benefit and is used to support OSU through an organizational and functional operational relationship with the university’s educational and research activities.
4. R.C. 3345.17 does not require split-listing of rent-generating portions of university property when the parcel has a primary use supporting the university and a sufficient operational relationship with university activities.
5. The Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to grant OSU relief on evidentiary objections because OSU did not file a cross-appeal challenging the BTA’s evidentiary rulings.

Questions Presented

1. Whether continued exemption depends on a material change in the property’s use since the exemption was originally granted.
2. Whether the OSU Airport parcel qualifies for exemption under R.C. 3345.17 as state property held for the use and benefit of a state university and used for the university’s support.
3. Whether the airport parcel must be split-listed under R.C. 5713.04 because portions are leased or used for private income-generating activities.
4. Whether the appellees’ evidentiary objections were properly before the Supreme Court absent a cross-appeal.

Disposition

affirmed