Opinion
No. 30251
Decided May 9, 1945.
Taxation — Appeal from Board of Tax Appeals to Supreme Court — Section 5611-2, General Code — Valuation of real estate — Decision not reversed or modified unless unreasonable or unlawful — Supreme Court will not substitute its judgment for that of board.
APPEAL from the Board of Tax Appeals.
In the year 1943 the auditor of Hamilton county, for purposes of taxation, assessed a parcel of real estate known as 320 Elm street, Cincinnati, Ohio, as follows: Land $19,030; buildings $91,000; total $110,030. The taxpayer being dissatisfied with the auditor's assessment filed a complaint with the board of revision, requesting a reduction of $50,000 in the valuation of the buildings. No complaint was made as to the valuation placed upon the land.
The board of revision sustained the valuation as fixed by the auditor.
Thereupon an appeal was perfected to the Board of Tax Appeals.
At the hearing before the Board of Tax Appeals the appellant called William Guentter and Harry E. Bell to testify in support of its claim for reduction.
William Guentter, a general contractor engaged in the construction, repair and maintenance of buildings, testified as to the general condition of the buildings but expressly declined to give any opinion as to their value. Harry E. Bell, a real estate broker, testified as to his opinion of the fair market value of the buildings in 1943. In his opinion the value at that time was between sixty and sixty-five thousand dollars.
The appellees there called Leo Townsend, one of the auditor's real estate appraisers, who testified that the buildings contained approximately two million cubic feet; that in his opinion the actual value in 1943 was 26 cents per cubic foot; and that the buildings were appraised at 18 cents per cubic foot.
The Board of Tax Appeals found that the valuation as determined for the year 1943 was not excessive, and that the true value of the buildings was $91,000.
The cause is in this court upon appeal from the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals by virtue of the provisions of Section 5611-2, General Code.
Messrs. Ragland, Dixon Murphy and Mr. Isadore Topper, for appellant.
Mr. Hugh S. Jenkins, attorney general, Mr. Aubrey A. Wendt, Mr. Carson Hoy, prosecuting attorney, and Mr. Frank M. Gusweiler, for appellees.
Appellant makes no claim that the county auditor in any wise discriminated against it in arriving at the true value in money of its property. The sole basis of its claim is that the buildings were assessed at an amount in excess of their true value in money.
Both the board of revision and the Board of Tax Appeals found (1) that appellant failed to sustain that claim and (2) that the true value in money of the buildings in the year 1943 was $91,000.
We are asked to reverse the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals.
In the case of Smith v. Board of Revision of Washington County, 138 Ohio St. 564, 37 N.E.2d 386, it was held:
"In an appeal to the Supreme Court under Section 5611-2, General Code, from a decision of the Board of Tax Appeals fixing the true value of real property for the purposes of taxation, the court must find such decision unreasonable or unlawful upon the record and the evidence to reverse or modify the same."
The statute grants to the Board of Tax Appeals wide discretion in arriving at a valuation and this court has repeatedly said that it will not substitute its judgment for that of the Board of Tax Appeals.
In the case of Citizens Building Co. of Cleveland v. Board of Revision of Cuyahoga County, 141 Ohio St. 47, at page 52, 46 N.E.2d 413, it is held:
"This court has no power to substitute its judgment for that of the Board of Tax Appeals but determines only whether the valuation fixed by that board it reasonable and lawful. * * *" See Ramsey v. County Board of Revision of Franklin County, 141 Ohio St. 366, 48 N.E.2d 102.
From a careful examination of this record it is apparent that the Board of Tax Appeals gave due consideration to the evidence and, attaching to the board's decision the presumption of good faith and validity to which it is entitled, we find no basis for the conclusion that it is unreasonable or unlawful. Therefore such decision should be and hereby is affirmed.
Decision affirmed.
WEYGANDT, C.J., ZIMMERMAN, BELL, WILLIAMS, TURNER, MATTHIAS and HART, JJ., concur.