Summary
In W. Industries, Inc. v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision, 170 Ohio St. 340, 342, 164 N.E.2d 741 (1960), we stated that "[t]he burden is on the taxpayer to prove his right to a deduction" and that he is "not entitled to the deduction claimed merely because no evidence is adduced contra his claim."
Summary of this case from Schwartz v. Cuyahoga Cnty. Bd. of RevisionOpinion
No. 36074
Decided February 10, 1960.
Taxation — Real property — Valuation — Appeal to Board of Tax Appeals — Section 5717.03, Revised Code — Determination of "true value in money" — Burden on taxpayer to prove right to reduction.
APPEAL from the Board of Tax Appeals.
This case involves the valuation, for purposes of taxation, of real estate with improvements thereon located in Hamilton County and known as the Kenwood Plaza Shopping Center. The appellant, owner of the subject premises, objected to the valuation placed thereon by the county auditor for the tax year 1957 and appealed to the county Board of Revision. After a hearing at which evidence was presented, the Board of Revision refused to reduce the valuation.
An appeal was taken from the decision of the Board of Revision to the Board of Tax Appeals under authority of Section 5717.01 et seq., Revised Code. Section 5717.03, Revised Code, provides that "in the case of an appeal from a decision of a county Board of Revision the Board of Tax Appeals shall determine the true value in money of the property whose valuation or assessment by the county Board of Revision is complained of."
The Board of Tax Appeals held that its duty was to determine whether the appellant had carried the burden of showing that the true value in money of the subject property for the tax year 1957 was less than the value listed on the county tax duplicate. After reviewing the evidence the Board of Tax Appeals found that appellant had not shown that either the land or the structures involved were valued in excess of their "true value in money" on the tax duplicate and adopted the valuation ascribed to the property by the county Board of Revision.
An appeal from the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals brings the cause to this court for review.
Messrs. Kyte, Conlan, Heekin Wulsin, Mr. Joseph J. Connaughton and Mr. Walter F. Hadley, Jr., for appellant.
Mr. C. Watson Hover, prosecuting attorney, and Mr. Raymond C. Wetherell, for appellee.
The ultimate question to be determined by the court is whether the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals is unreasonable or unlawful.
Appellant contends that the controversy stems directly from inability to comprehend the term, "true value in money," as the term is used in the above-quoted portion of the statute; that the statute is unconstitutional because it has no known or ascertainable meaning; that the Board of Tax Appeals must determine the true value in money; that it abdicated its statutory duty in ruling that its duty was to determine whether appellant carried the burden; and that the valuation adopted was not the true value.
"True value in money" is a constitutional term (Section 2, Article XII), and failure of the statute to further define the term does not render the statute so vague or indefinite as to be meaningless.
In determining the value of property for the purpose of taxation, the assessing body must take into consideration all factors which affect the value of the property. B.F. Keith Columbus Co. v. Board of Revision of Franklin County, 148 Ohio St. 253; American Steel Wire Co. v. Board of Revision of Cuyahoga County, 139 Ohio St. 388.
The burden is on the taxpayer to prove his right to a deduction. He is not entitled to the deduction claimed merely because no evidence is adduced contra his claim. Higbee Co. v. Evatt, Tax Commr., 140 Ohio St. 325; Rollman Sons Co. v. Board of Revision of Hamilton County, 163 Ohio St. 363.
The decision of the Board of Tax Appeals is not unreasonable or unlawful, and it is hereby affirmed.
Decision affirmed.
WEYGANDT, C.J., ZIMMERMAN, TAFT, MATTHIAS, BELL, HERBERT and PECK, JJ., concur.