HK New Plan Exchange Property Owner II, L.L.C. v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision (2009), 122 Ohio St.3d 438

Jul 28, 2009

OUTCOME: BTA decision accepting sale price upheld.

Property Owner presented deed and conveyance fee statement evidencing sale of property in 2003 as reflective of the value of the property as of January 1, 2005. The Board of Education argued that the ... sale was part of a larger bulk transfer but presented no evidence in support of this allegation. The BTA found that there was no evidence of change in the market between the sale date and the tax lien date and that the allegations regarding the a bulk transfer were not supported by the record. The BOE appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court and the Court up-held the decision of the BTA.

Meijer Stores Ltd. Partnership v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision (2009), 122 Ohio St.3d 447.

Jul 22, 2009

OUTCOME: BTA Affirmed.

Meijer Stores Limited Partnership (“Meijer”) sought to reverse a decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (“BTA”) that determined the value of a newly constructed Meijer store for the 2003 tax year. The BT ... A rejected the appraisal Meijer offered and adopted an appraisal presented on behalf of the school board. For purposes of this appeal, the most important difference between the two appraisals rests in the selection of comparable-sale properties and comparable-rent properties: the school board's appraiser utilized a range of properties that included “build-to-suit” properties that, unlike the property at issue, were not owned by the business that operated on the premises. (See Target discussion below where such arguments were rejected when competing appraisal was not provided.) In affirming the BTA’s acceptance of the BOE’s appraisal the Court held that the held that: (1) testimony of school board's appraiser as to value of store was sufficient to rebut store owner's appraiser's theory of obsolescence; (2) appraiser could compare store with build-to-suit properties; and (3) appraisal was not a prohibited value-in-use appraisal in light of the “special purpose property” doctrine. The Court’s decision, combined with the Target decision below reflect a considerable deference to the factual determination made by the BTA and the importance of competing appraisal evidence on behalf of those contesting appraisal evidence before the BTA.

Target Corp v. Greene Cty. Bd. of Revision (2009), 122 Ohio St. 3d 142.

Jun 03, 2009

OUTCOME: BTA Affirmed.

The Supreme Court of Ohio rejected the contention that first generation sales should be used to value owner-occupied big box properties for taxation purposes. The Court established that there are spec ... ific reasons for not using first generation rents as comparables and this approach is supported by appraisal methodology. Additionally, the Court stated that when a property is not encumbered by a long-term lease, first generation comparables cannot be utilized because there is no comparability between the sale of a property subject to a first generation, build-to-suit lease and a property that is owner occupied. The Court failed to find whether or not the big box stores may be considered a special-purpose property, but did state that case law has shown deference to the fact finding expertise of the Board of Tax Appeals. Therefore, because there was no evidence refuting the evidence established by Target, the Board of Tax Appeals decision adopting the value determined by Target’s appraiser was proper.

HealthSouth Corp. v. Levin (2009), 121 Ohio St. 3d 282

Feb 17, 2009

OUTCOME:

The Department appealed arguing that the taxpayer should be equitably estopped from seeking the refund and that the objections regarding the evidence provided by the taxpayers were not fully addressed ... by the BTA In a 7-0 decision (a 5 justice majority opinion and a 2 justice concurring opinion) the Court held that based upon the Ohio statutes the Ohio Tax Commissioner has no discretion to refuse to pay the refund based upon the taxpayer’s bad faith or lack of mistake. Ultimately the Court remanded the case back to the BTA to provide more detail in its opinion but says specifically in paragraph 35 that “[i]n so doing, we clarify that we do not hold here that the BTA reached the wrong conclusion. . . . We find only that the BTA’s decision in its current form does not properly evaluate the evidence before it in light of the commissioner’s objections.

AEI Net Lease Fund v. Erie Cty. Bd. of Revision (2008), 119 Ohio St. 3d 563.

Oct 01, 2008

OUTCOME: Court accepted 2nd sale-leaseback sale for tax val

Rhodes v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision (2008), 117 Ohio St. 3d 532

Feb 01, 2008

OUTCOME: Court accepted NNN sales price for tax value

Columbus City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision (2008), 118 Ohio St.3d 262

Feb 01, 2008

OUTCOME: Court accepted NNN sale price as tax value

Cincinnati Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision (2008), 118 Ohio St.3d 263

Feb 01, 2008

OUTCOME: Court accepted NNN sale price as tax value

Reynoldsburg v. Licking Cty. Budget Comm (2004), 104 Ohio St. 3d 453

Feb 01, 2004

OUTCOME:

Overturned BTA decision rejecting county budget fund allocations