Summary
In Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision v. Fodor (1968), 15 Ohio St.2d 52, 44 O.O.2d 30, 239 N.E.2d 25, syllabus, we held, "The fair market value of property for tax purposes is a question of fact, the determination of which is primarily within the province of the taxing authorities, and this court will not disturb a decision of the Board of Tax Appeals with respect to such valuation unless it affirmatively appears from the record that such decision is unreasonable or unlawful."
Summary of this case from Knowlton Realty Co. v. Darke Cty. Bd. of RevisionOpinion
No. 68-88
Decided June 19, 1968.
Taxation — Real property — Valuation — Fair market value, fact question for tax authorities — Decision not disturbed by courts, when.
The fair market value of property for tax purposes is a question of fact, the determination of which is primarily within the province of the taxing authorities, and this court will not disturb a decision of the Board of Tax Appeals with respect to such valuation unless it affirmatively appears from the record that such decision is unreasonable or unlawful.
APPEAL from the Board of Tax Appeals.
This cause is before this court on appeal as a matter of right by the Board of Revision of Cuyahoga County from the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals finding the taxable value of appellee's high-rise apartment building and land to be $1,437,150 as of January 1, 1966.
The Board of Revision found the taxable value to be $2,113,490. The taxpayer appealed to the Board of Tax Appeals which conducted a hearing wherein it was stipulated by the parties that the common level of assessment in Cuyahoga County for the tax year involved was 42.9° of fair market value.
The evidence before the board consisted of the testimony of a part owner of the property, and of an expert appraiser for each side. The opinions as to fair market value expressed by the respective appraisers varied by approximately $800,000. The Board of Tax Appeals adopted the estimate of the taxpayer's appraiser, applied the stipulated assessment percentage thereto, determined the taxable value to be $1,437,150, and ordered a copy of its entry certified to the county auditor for adjustment of the pertinent tax records.
Mr. John T. Corrigan, prosecuting attorney, Mr. Thomas P. Cyrus and Mr. Adam P. Angelas, for appellant.
Messrs. Burke, Haber Berick, Mr. Jacob I. Rosenbaum and Mr. Joseph G. Berick, for appellee.
The question presented is whether the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals is unreasonable or unlawful. The appellant board of revision contends that the Board of Tax Appeals failed to consider all the evidence of fair market value presented.
The fair market value of a parcel of property at a particular time for tax purposes is a question of fact, the determination of which is primarily within the province of the taxing authorities. Benedict v. Hamilton County Board of Revision, 170 Ohio St. 62. In Hercules Galion Products, Inc., v. Bowers, 171 Ohio St. 176, in a per curiam opinion, this court held that the provisions for a direct appeal to this court from decisions of the Board of Tax Appeals were not intended by the General Assembly to make this court a "super" board of tax appeals. See, also, Brennan v. Board of Tax Appeals, 175 Ohio St. 263; Benedict v. Hamilton County Board of Revision, supra; Fair Store Co. v. Board of Revision of Hamilton County, 145 Ohio St. 231; Smith v. Board of Revision of Washington County, 138 Ohio St. 564. An examination of the record in this case reveals that the Board of Tax Appeals gave due consideration to the evidence before it. It follows that the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals is neither unreasonable nor unlawful and it is, therefore, affirmed.
Decision affirmed.
TAFT, C.J., ZIMMERMAN, MATTHIAS, O'NEILL, SCHNEIDER and BROWN, JJ., concur.