In the case of Columbus City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 2022-Ohio-4100, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s ruling to uphold the Board of Tax Appeals’ decision to increase the tax valuation of taxpayer’s six parcels to reflect the arm’s-length transaction sale price of the properties.
Here, the board of education argued that there should be an increase in the tax valuation of taxpayer’s six parcels to reflect the arm’s-length transaction sale price of the properties, submitting the purchase contract and settlement statement as evidence. The original property owner (“CCA”) hired an appraiser and argued that the board of education did not submit its evidence in compliance with disclosure deadlines per Ohio Administrative Code 5717-1-07, and thus the evidence should be excluded, and argued that the Board of Tax Appeals did not give enough weight to the appraisals entered into evidence. The appellate court disagreed with CCA.
In support of its decision, the appellate court first explained that Ohio Adm.Code 5717-1-07 states that noncompliance with established deadlines “may” result in the evidence being prohibited from introduction, but does not require such prohibition, and since the purchase contract and settlement statement were relevant to the valuation of the properties, it was allowed to be introduced regardless of the noncompliance. The appellate court then explained that “the owner of the property has the burden to show the impropriety of the allocated sales price.” Columbus City Schools Bd. of Edn., ¶ 35, citing Bedford Bd. of Edn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 132 Ohio
St.3d 371, 2012-Ohio-2844, ¶ 26, 32-33. The appellate court found that CCA’s appraisal was not based on firsthand knowledge of the sale of the property and thus was not sufficient to negate the validity of the sale price.
To read this case, click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and the McGown & Markling Team.
Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always-changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.