Cincinnati School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
1 Cincinnati School District Board of Education, Appellant, v. Hamilton 2 County Board of Revision et al., Appellees. 3 [Cite as Cincinnati School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision 4 (1996), _____ Ohio St.3d _____.] 5 Taxation -- Real property valuation -- Carryover from the filing of a 6 prior complaint is not applicable to the tax year and 7 succeeding years for which a valid new complaint is filed and 8 determined by a board of revision -- R.C. 5715.19, construed 9 and applied. 10 (No. 95-1144--Submitted January 4, 1996--Decided March 1, 1996.) 11 Appeal from the Board of Tax Appeals No. 93-P-72. 12 Complaints were filed with the Hamilton County Board of Revision 13 ( BOR ) for tax year 1989 concerning the valuation of real property owned 14 by Grandin House, Ltd. ( Grandin ). The valuation determined by the BOR 15 for tax year 1989 was appealed to the Board of Tax Appeals ( BTA ). On 16 November 13, 1992 the BTA issued its decision for tax year 1989, 17 determining the true value of Grandin s real property to be $5,600,000. The 18 decision of the BTA was appealed to this court, which affirmed the BTA on 1 May 18, 1994. Cincinnati v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision (1994), 69 Ohio 2 St.3d 301, 631 N.E.2d 1038. 3 While the 1989 appeal was pending, Grandin filed a complaint for tax 4 year 1990, alleging a true value for its real property of $3,000,000. The 5 1990 tax year was the first year of a triennial period. The Cincinnati School 6 District Board of Education filed a countercomplaint, alleging the true value 7 of the property for tax year 1990 to be $4,518,000, the same amount 8 assessed by the Hamilton County Auditor. 9 At the hearing before the BOR on December 14, 1992, Thomas 10 Heywood, an appraiser representing the Hamilton County Auditor, testified 11 that the fair market value of the real property was $4,600,000. Grandin s 12 attorney presented operating figures to the BOR from which he derived a 13 value of approximately $4,400,000. The BOR affirmed the auditor s 14 assessment for tax year 1990 of $4,518,030. 15 16 The school board did not appear by counsel or present any evidence or witnesses at the BOR hearing for tax year 1990. 2 1 The school board appealed the BOR s decision to the BTA. The BTA 2 affirmed the BOR s decision and the school board filed an appeal to this 3 court. 4 This cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right. 5 Kohnen & Patton and David C. DiMuzio, for appellant. 6 Wayne E. Petkovic, for appellee Grandin House, Ltd. 7 Per Curiam. The school board s contention is that the BTA erred in 8 not carrying forward the 1989 valuation to the 1990 tax year. The school 9 board further contends that the valuation established for the 1989 tax year 10 must be carried forward until another value is established at the next 11 sexennial reappraisal. 12 Grandin contends that, because 1990 was the first year of a triennial 13 period, it was entitled to file a new complaint. Grandin further contends 14 that when it filed a new complaint for tax year 1990, the BOR was required 15 to establish a true value based on the determination of that complaint, and 16 the BOR should not carry over the valuation from 1989. 17 18 Prior to the amendment of R.C. 5715.19(A) in 1988, complaints concerning the assessment of real property could be filed for each new tax 3 1 year. In 1988, R.C. 5715.19(A) was amended to limit the number of times 2 a person, board, or officer may make a complaint with respect to real 3 property tax valuation and assessments. Am.Sub. H.B. No. 603, 142 Ohio 4 Laws, Part III, 4583. The language added to R.C. 5715.19(A) by H.B. No. 5 603 in 1988 provided: No person, board, or officer shall file a complaint 6 against the valuation or assessment of any parcel that appears on the tax list 7 if it filed a complaint against the valuation or assessment of that parcel for 8 any prior year in the same interim period unless one or more of four 9 specified circumstances applied. Id. at 4590. 10 An interim period is defined in R.C. 5715.19 by reference to R.C. 11 5715.24 as one of the three-year periods between the sexennial reappraisals. 12 Thus each of the persons listed in R.C. 5715.19(A) is permitted to file a 13 complaint in each triennium. Furthermore, R.C. 5715.11 provides that the 14 county board of revision shall hear complaints relating to the valuation or 15 assessment of real property ***. The board shall investigate all such 16 complaints and may increase or decrease any such valuation or correct any 17 assessment complained of ***. The foregoing makes it clear that a board 18 of revision is required to hear and to determine a value for each valid 4 1 complaint filed with it. No distinction is made for the situation where a 2 prior complaint may still be pending. 3 The school board bases its contention on language contained in R.C. 4 5715.19(D), which it contends requires the 1989 valuation in this case to be 5 carried over until the end of the sexennial period: 6 (D) The determination of any such complaint shall relate back to the 7 date when the lien for taxes or recoupment charges for the current year 8 attached or the date as of which liability for such year was determined. 9 Liability for taxes and recoupment charges for such year and each 10 succeeding year until the complaint is finally determined and for any 11 penalty and interest for nonpayment thereof within the time required by law 12 shall be based upon the determination, valuation, or assessment as finally 13 determined. Each complaint shall state the amount of overvaluation, 14 undervaluation, discriminatory valuation, illegal valuation, or incorrect 15 classification or determination upon which the complaint is based. The 16 treasurer shall accept any amount tendered as taxes or recoupment charge 17 upon property concerning which a complaint is then pending, computed 18 upon the claimed valuation as set forth in the complaint. If a complaint filed 5 1 under this section for the current year is not determined by the board within 2 the time prescribed for such determination, the complaint and any 3 proceedings in relation thereto shall be continued by the board as a valid 4 complaint for any ensuing year until such complaint is finally determined by 5 the board or upon any appeal from a decision of the board. In such case, 6 the original complaint shall continue in effect without further filing by the 7 original taxpayer, his assignee, or any other person or entity authorized to 8 file a complaint under this section. (Emphasis added.) 9 Although the language of R.C. 5715.19(A) gives a person the right to 10 file at least one complaint per triennium, the school board s interpretation of 11 R.C. 5715.19(D) would nullify the effect of that right. If a prior complaint 12 was still pending, the school board s interpretation would not allow a board 13 of revision to determine a value for the year of a new complaint. 14 The complaint filed by Grandin was the first complaint filed by it in 15 the second triennium of the sexennial period. No one disputes that Grandin 16 was entitled to file a complaint in the second triennium. However, the 17 school board would require the BOR to ignore its finding of value for 1990 18 and find the 1989 valuation, as finally determined, to prevail for 1990. In 6 1 resolving this matter we are guided by the principles set out in the first 2 paragraph of the syllabus of Gulf Oil Corp. v. Kosydar (1975), 44 Ohio 3 St.2d 208, 73 O.O.2d 507, 339 N.E.2d 820: 4 Strict construction of taxing statutes is required, and any doubt must 5 be resolved in favor of the citizen upon whom or the property upon which 6 the burden is sought to be imposed. 7 In the second paragraph of the syllabus of Gulf Oil Corp. we held: 8 If the construction and interpretation of statutory language reveals 9 the statute to be facially ambiguous, it is the function of the courts to 10 construe the statutory language to effect a just and reasonable result. 11 12 Finally, R.C. 1.47 provides that in enacting a statute it is presumed that: 13 (B) The entire statute is intended to be effective; 14 (C) A just and reasonable result is intended; 15 (D) A result feasible of execution is intended. 16 The only interpretation that will harmonize the competing portions of 17 R.C. 5715.19 is one that will nullify neither the right to file a complaint nor 18 the duty of the board of revision to hear and decide the complaint. The only 7 1 construction of R.C. 5715.19 that will achieve this result is one that holds 2 that the carryover from the filing of a prior complaint is not applicable to the 3 tax year and succeeding years for which a valid new complaint is filed and 4 determined by a board of revision. Thus, the filing of a valid new complaint 5 in the second triennium stops, for the tax year at issue and succeeding years, 6 the automatic carryover of the value determined under a prior complaint. 7 The filing of the valid new complaint in the second triennium will 8 require a new determination of value by the board of revision, and that 9 determination shall relate back to the date when the lien for taxes or 10 recoupment charges for the year in question attach or the date as of which 11 the liability for the year was determined. 12 The school board also raises as a proposition of law that a board of 13 revision has no jurisdiction to consider complaints subsequent to a pending 14 complaint until that pending complaint has been finally determined. That 15 issue was not raised in the school board s notice of appeal and therefore will 16 not be ruled on by this court. 17 18 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the BTA s decision is neither unreasonable nor unlawful. 8 1 2 3 Decision affirmed. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK, JJ., concur. 4 9
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
