Subscribe to School Law Newsletter
Close Window

Amendments to Tax Law Do not Apply Retroactively

In the case of New Albany-Plain Local Schools Bd of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 2023-Ohio-3806, an appellate court held the school board was permitted to appeal the decision of the tax appeals for a complaint filed prior to the effective date of new amendments to R.C. 5715.19(A) and R.C. 5717.01.

In this case, the school board argued that the new amendments to R.C. 5715.19(A) and R.C. 5717.01, which prohibit school boards from filing appeals from original complaints or counterclaims regarding property tax valuations for properties not owned or leased by the school board, only applied to complaints that were filed after July 21, 2022. In response, the board of revision argued that school boards were not able to appeal the decision of a tax appeal under the new amendments, even if the original complaint was filed prior to July 21, 2022. The appellate court agreed with the school board.

In support of its decision in favor of the school board, the appellate court explained that the Ohio General Assembly’s use of the words “original complaint” and “counter-complaint” show that the amendments would not apply to already-existing cases and controversies. The appellate court further explained that the school board did not file the original complaint under R.C. 5715.19, and thus would not meet the exception under R.C. 5717.01.

To read this case, click here.

Authors: Matthew John Markling and the McGown & Markling Team.

NOTE: The fact pattern from this case is very similar to Olentangy Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Revision, 2023-Ohio-3984, the blog for which can be found here and was made by the same appellate court on the same day as Lancaster City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Fairfield Cty. Bd. of Revision, 2023-Ohio-3985, the blog for which can be found here. Many appellate courts in Ohio are striking down the Board of Tax Appeals decision in North Ridgeville City Schools Board of Education v. Lorain County Board of Revision, BTA No. 2022-1152, 2022 WL 16725740 (Oct. 31, 2022).

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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.