In the case of Archon Capital, L.P. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 2023-Ohio-1750, an appellate court held that (1) a taxpayer is required to show competent and reliable evidence that a tax valuation is incorrect when the taxpayer disputes a tax evaluation and (2) a trial court must make its own valuation determination in an appeal of a tax hearing, and not simply “rubber stamp” the board’s findings.
In this case, the landowners argued that (1) the trial court needed to admit the board’s appraiser’s testimonial evidence on the appraiser’s method of valuation and (2) the trial court failed to do an independent valuation of the properties when the trial court merely affirmed the board’s decision rather than issue the trial court’s own valuation. In response, the board argued that (1) the court was not required to admit additional evidence and it was the landowner’s responsibility to that their proposed values is the correct value and (2) the trial court had the same valuation as the board, so a new value was not necessary. The appellate court agreed with the board on the evidence claim and with the landowners on the independent valuation claim.
In support of its decision in favor of the board on the evidence claim, the appellate court explained that the landowners could have engaged in discovery to depose the board’s appraisers if the landowners thought the board had stymied the landowners’ efforts to prove the valuation of the properties but failed to. The appellate court further explained that, because the court has discretion, it was not an abuse of discretion to deny the request for the evidentiary hearing.
In support of its decision in favor of the landowners on the independent valuation claim, the appellate court explained that the record does not conclusively show that the trial court appropriately engaged in a mandatory independent valuation because there is no specific valuation of each individual property.
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.