Justia Tax Law Opinion Summaries

On October 10, 2011 the board of revision issued a decision ordering reductions in the valuation of property owed by a county club. The local school district board of education (school board) attempted to appeal that decision to the board of tax appeals (BTA) by sending the appropriate notices by certified mail on October 14, 2011. That same day, the country club physically presented its notices of appeal to the common pleas court and the BOR. The school board argued that it had filed its appeal first because it placed its notices in the mail earlier on October 14 than the country club had filed its appeals at the courthouse and the BOR. The BTA ruled that the country club had filed its appeal first, determining that the time of the mailing was immaterial and that the probative force of the school board evidence of the time of mailing was questionable. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because the BTA acted reasonably and lawfully in determining that the school board had not proven the time when its notice of appeal was mailed, it properly held that the country club's filing in the common pleas court had priority for jurisdictional purposes. View "Oak Hills Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Hamilton County Bd. of Revision" on Justia Law

In this appeal of a real-property-valuation case, the city school district board of education challenged a decision of the board of tax appeals (BTA) that affirmed the county board of revision's (BOR) adoption of a sale price as the value of the property at issue for tax year 2007. The school board argued in part that the BOR lacked jurisdiction because the valuation complaint had been signed and submitted by the property owner's spouse, who was not a lawyer. The Supreme Court affirmed the BTA's decision, holding (1) the filing of a valuation complaint by the owner's spouse validly invokes the BOR's jurisdiction; and (2) the record furnished a sufficient basis to support the BTA's finding. View "Columbus City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Franklin County Bd. of Revision" on Justia Law

In this appeal, the Supreme Court was asked to determined whether Ohio Const. art. XII, 5a permits the use of motor vehicle and gas tax (MVGT) funds to pay those costs of a county's joint self-insurance pool attributable to covering the risk of liability and loss resulting from the operations of a county engineer's highway department. The Supreme Court concluded that Ohio Const. art. XII, 5a authorizes the use of MVGT funds to pay a county's cost of participating in a joint self-insurance pool attributable to covering the risk of liability and loss resulting from the operations of a county engineer's highway department. In so holding, the Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and remanded. View "Stockberger v. Henry" on Justia Law

In this appeal, Progressive Plastics, Inc. (PPI) challenged the tax commissioner's decision to increase PPI's personal property tax assessments for 2004 and 2005. In amending the assessments, the commissioner recomputed the value of PPI's inventory based on the FIFO (first in, first out) accounting method rather than the LIFO (last in, first out) method, which PPI had used on its books. The board of tax appeals (BTA) affirmed the commissioner's amended assessments, finding that collateral estoppel barred PPI's FIFO/LIFO claim on the grounds that the issue had already been litigated and decided against PPI in the tax-year 2003 proceedings. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the BTA incorrectly determined that collateral estoppel applied to PPI's appeal for the 2004 and 2005 tax years; and (2) the BTA erred by upholding the commissioner's assessments at issue here, as the substitution of FIFO for LIFO was impermissible under the circumstances of this case. View "Progressive Plastics, Inc. v. Testa" on Justia Law

Bay Mechanical & Electrical Corporation, a specialty mechanical contractor, challenged a sales-tax assessment issued by the tax commissioner with respect to Bay's purchase of allegedly taxable employment services. During the audit period, Bay purchased the services from two entities. Bay treated the personnel supplied by the entities as "permanent-assignment" employees, and therefore regarded the attendant employment services as exempt pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code 5739.01(JJ)(3). The commissioner denied the exemption on the ground that the evidence offered by Bay was insufficient to prove entitlement to the exemption. The board of tax appeals (BTA) affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the BTA acted reasonably and lawfully when it upheld the tax commissioner's sales-tax assessment against Bay because the contracts and testimony offered by Bay did not satisfy the one-year and permanent-assignment criteria of section 5739.01(JJ)(3). View "Bay Mech. & Elec. Corp. v. Testa" on Justia Law

This was an expedited election case in which Relators, taxpayers and committee members representing the petitioners supporting the issue, requested a writ of mandamus to compel Respondent, the county board of elections, to submit a levy-decrease question to the electorate at the November 6, 2012 general election. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that the board of elections neither abused its discretion nor clearly disregarded Ohio Rev. Code 5705.261 and 5705.192 by removing Relators' levy-decrease initiative from the November 6 ballot where the voter-approved levy did not increase the rate of the preexisting voter-approved levies. View "State ex rel. Taxpayers for Westerville Sch. v. Bd. of Elections" on Justia Law

LTC Properties, Inc., which owned a congregate care assisted-living facility in Licking County, contested the tax-year 2007 valuation of its property as found by the auditor, as retained by the Licking County Board of Revision, and as affirmed by the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA). On the merits, LTC contended (1) the auditor overvalued its property by predicating his cost-based valuation on the cost schedule for nursing homes and private hospitals rather than on the cost schedule for apartment buildings with twenty to thirty-nine rental units; and (2) the BTA erred by denying LTC's request for a continuance of the evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the BTA's decision to affirm the County's use of the nursing home / private hospital cost schedule as a starting point in performing a cost valuation of LTC's assisted-living facility was neither unreasonable nor unlawful; and (2) the BTA did not abuse its discretion by denying a continuance. View "LTC Props., Inc. v. Licking County Bd. of Revision" on Justia Law

In this case, Appellants, Cincinnati Golf Management, Inc. (CGMI) and the City of Cincinnati, challenged a consumer's use-tax assessment issued by the tax commissioner against CGMI. The commissioner assessed tax with respect to purchases that the commissioner deemed to be taxable under the sales and use tax laws of Ohio. Appellants asserted that because CGMI made the purchases as an agent for the City, the purchases were exempt as sales to a political subdivision pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code 5739.02(B)(1). Both the commissioner and the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) found that CGMI, acting in its capacity as an independent contractor under the management agreement between it and the City, did not qualify as an agent of the City with respect to the sales at issue. Accordingly, the BTA upheld the assessment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellants' arrangements did not satisfy the elements of agency for purposes of section 5739.02(B)(1); and (2) purchases by CGMI did not constitute sales to the City under the sales tax law's definition of a sale. View "Cincinnati Golf Mgmt., Inc. v. Testa " on Justia Law

In this appeal, a property owner challenged an increase to the 2006 valuation of its property that was ordered by the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) at the instigation of the Bedford Board of Education. The BTA reversed the decision of the Cuyahoga County Board of Revision (BOR), which had retained the auditor's valuation of $3,713,500. The BTA valued the property by using the allocated portion of the March 2006 sale price, which increased the valuation to $4,835,000. The owner appealed, contending that the allocated sale price was not reflective of market value. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the BTA erred by ignoring and failing to weigh the significance of testimony regarding the seller's tax motivations in allocating the sale price to the subject property; and (2) because it is the duty of the BTA to weigh the evidence and determine the facts concerning valuation, the case was remanded for proper consideration of the effect of that testimony. View "Bedford Bd. of Educ. v. Bd. of Revision" on Justia Law

In this appeal, 1495 Jaeger LLC challenged the denial by the board of tax appeals (BTA) of a motion through which Jaeger sought to carry forward a stipulated value for tax year 2008 to subsequent tax years. On February 1, 2011, the BTA issued a dispositive order that adopted a property value that had been stipulated by the parties for the tax year 2008. On July 11, 2011, Jaeger filed its motion for an additional BTA order that would require that the stipulated value be carried forward through tax year 2011. The BTA denied Jaeger's motion on the grounds that it had no jurisdiction, reasoning that it lost jurisdiction when the thirty-day period for appealing its February 1 dispositional order expired. Jaeger appealed, arguing that the continuing-complaint provision of Ohio Rev. Code 5715.19(D) conferred jurisdiction on the BTA. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the BTA correctly concluded it lacked jurisdiction to modify its decision after expiration of the thirty-day appeal period. View "1495 Jaeger LLC v. Bd. of Revision" on Justia Law