Opinion
Nos. 75-582 and 75-583
Decided December 31, 1975.
Taxation — Board of Revision — Complaint as to assessment of real property — Jurisdiction — Compliance with data requirements in complaint form necessary.
APPEALS from the Board of Tax Appeals.
In January 1974, appellants filed complaints with the Cuyahoga County Board of Revision as to valuations placed upon their respective real properties by the Auditor of Cuyahoga County for the tax year 1973.
There is no dispute that the complaint forms filed by appellants were as properly prescribed by the Board of Tax Appeals pursuant to the mandatory duty of such board imposed by R.C. 5715.29 and 5715.30. The respective complaint forms filed did identify the properties, giving previous and current assessed values together with the decreased values sought and the taxable values claimed. A substantial portion of the respective forms, wherein specified detailed information was requested, was not completed, and, in the lower portion of the forms which specified information relating to similar properties in the immediate vicinity, appellants inserted a reference to appraisals made on their respective properties updated for the tax year 1972, which appraisals were on file with the appellee, Cuyahoga County Board of Revision. In case No. 75-582, for illustration, the following statement appears on the complaint form: "This property was the subject of complaint No. 73408 (1972) which the Board of Revision decided on December 7, 1973 wherein the valuation was reduced to $2,430,020. That decision is presently being appealed to the Board of Tax Appeals. An appraisal by Robert L. Free was filed therein which is incorporated herein. Property is a (12) story office building plus penthouse, concrete framed, precast concrete panels. All details are in the Free appraisal." A similar insertion was made by appellant on its complaint form in case No. 75-583.
The reverse side of the complaint form contains printed instructive information, and, inter alia, the following statement:
"The mere statement that taxes are too high are no grounds for a complaint. Section 5715.19 of the Revised Code provides that complainant shall set forth the `over valuation, under evaluation, discriminatory valuation or illegal valuation complained of.' Section 5715.13 of the Revised Code provides that THE BOARD SHALL NOT MAKE ANY REDUCTION UNLESS THE FACTS JUSTIFYING THE REDUCTION ARE SET FORTH AND SWORN TO. If complainant does not comply with these sections, the Board is without jurisdiction to consider the complaint."
The board of revision dismissed the respective complaints without hearing, on November 7, 1974, on the basis of Stanjim Co. v. Bd. of Revision (1974), 38 Ohio St.2d 233.
Appeals were taken in both cases on the question of whether the board of revision had jurisdiction to hear these complaints. On appeal, evidence was presented relative to a 1971 opinion of the Prosecuting Attorney of Cuyahoga County advising the board of revision that complaint forms containing only complainant's name, property description, tax year involved, and valuation complained of, were sufficiently completed to confer jurisdiction on such board. Additionally, the appraisals referenced to and incorporated in such complaints, as previously noted, were proferred before the Board of Tax Appeals.
The Board of Tax Appeals affirmed these dismissals, and these appeals are taken therefrom as a matter of right.
Messrs. Forrester Kovanda, Mr. John E. Forrester and Mr. Ralph D. Kovanda, for appellants.
Mr. John T. Corrigan, prosecuting attorney, Mr. Timothy J. Armstrong and Mr. Thomas P. Cyrus, for appellee.
Stanjim was decided by this court on June 12, 1974, which was after taxpayers filed the complaint forms herein, but prior to dismissal of such complaints by the board of revision. Stanjim, at page 235, decided affirmatively that "full compliance with R.C. 5715.19 and 5715.13 is necessary before a county board of revision is empowered to act on the merits of a claim." Stanjim further recognized the authority of the Board of Tax Appeals to promulgate forms reflecting the data requirements of R.C. 5715.19 and 5715.13, and held, at page 236, as we do here, that subject forms represent "a lawful interpretation of the minimal, data requirements of R.C. 5715.19 and 5715.13."
Appellants urge, however, that past practice of the board of revision in accepting incomplete complaint forms, upon opinion of the county prosecutor before this court's decision in Stanjim, are sufficient to except this case from application of Stanjim. Stanjim itself speaks to this question by acknowledging a similar past practice of the board of revision therein, but noting, at page 236, that "* * * the cautionary statements of the reverse side of BTA Form 1 should have alerted them to the hazards of relying upon such a dubious, albeit locally sanctioned, practice." Such cautionary statements are likewise found on the reverse side of the BTA forms filed herein.
Moreover, although appellants do not precisely raise a question concerning the prior narrative appraisals of their respective properties being in the hands of, or available to, the board of revision for years immediately prior to the tax year in question, a review of such appraisals reveals that they leave unanswered many of the questions called for in the BTA complaint forms, which information Stanjim recognized, at page 236, as "* * * intended, in the words of the Board of Tax Appeals, `to give the board of revision an opportunity to investigate the truthfulness of said alleged facts prior to hearing.'"
The answer to appellants' argument as to deprivation of their constitutional right of taxation by uniform rule according to value is also answered by Stanjim which observed that by failure to comply with reasonable procedural prerequisites of the Board of Tax Appeals "* * * appellants have foregone the available opportunity to have their claims heard on the merits."
For the foregoing reasons, the decisions of the Board of Tax Appeals in case Nos. 75-582 and 75-583 are reasonable and lawful and, therefore, are affirmed.
Decisions affirmed.
O'NEILL, C.J., HERBERT, CORRIGAN, STERN, CELEBREZZE, W. BROWN and P. BROWN, JJ., concur.