Opinion
Nos. 81-1091 and 81-1193
Decided June 23, 1982.
Taxation — Real property — Valuation — Uniform rule — Use of recent sale prices lawful.
APPEALS from the Board of Tax Appeals.
These appeals have been consolidated for review by this court. Appellants in both cases purchased homes in Shaker Heights, Ohio, in 1978. Appellant in case No. 81-1091, William E. Shaw, purchased his home for the price of $208,000, which was assigned a taxable value of $72,800 for tax year 1979. Appellants in case No. 81-1193, James E. and Phyllis A. Terrell, purchased their home for a price of $190,000, which was assigned a taxable value of $66,600 for tax year 1979. In both cases, the taxable value was determined by applying a 35 percent level of assessment.
The correct figure here should be $66,500, as determined by the Board of Tax Appeals, infra.
For tax year 1979, the Cuyahoga County Auditor had updated the values of all property in the county. The taxable values of homes in Shaker Heights which were not recently sold were increased approximately 15 percent. Appellants asserted that this increase resulted in an average taxable value of $40,000 to $43,000 for homes similar to appellants' which were not recently sold.
Appellants each filed a Complaint as to the Assessment of Real Property with the Cuyahoga County Board of Revision (board). In each case, the board reduced the taxable value of the property because the sales prices paid by appellants included certain personal property not subject to the real property tax. The taxable value of the Shaw property was reduced to $67,550, and the taxable value of the Terrell property was reduced to $60,900.
Upon appeal, the Board of Tax Appeals assessed the properties at the original values assigned by the auditor.
These cases are now before this court upon appeals as of right.
Mr. James E. Terrell, for appellants.
Mr. John T. Corrigan, prosecuting attorney, and Mr. Jeffrey I. Sherwin, for appellee.
Appellants argue that because their properties were valued according to their recent sale prices, resulting in a valuation higher than that of homes in the area not recently sold, the constitutional and statutory provisions requiring taxation by uniform rule have been violated. On authority of our decision in Meyer v. Bd. of Revision (1979), 58 Ohio St.2d 328, we find this argument to be without merit. Under facts virtually identical to those presented herein we held in Meyer, supra, at paragraph one of the syllabus, that "[t]he requirement of Section 2, Article XII of the Ohio Constitution that `[l]and and improvements thereon shall be taxed by uniform rule according to value' is not violated when a county board of revision pursuant to R.C. 5715.19 reappraises an individual parcel based upon evidence of the most recent sale price of that parcel."
The reductions in valuation allowed by the board of revision to reflect the value of personal property included in the sale prices were not contested before the Board of Tax Appeals. For this reason we agree with appellants' contention that it was error for the Board of Tax Appeals to increase the valuations of their purchased personal property. The valuations as determined by the board of revision are reinstated.
Accordingly, the decisions of the Board of Tax Appeals are affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Decisions affirmed in part and reversed in part.
W. BROWN, Acting C.J., DOUGLAS, SWEENEY, LOCHER, HOLMES, C. BROWN and KRUPANSKY, JJ., concur.
DOUGLAS, J., of the Sixth Appellate District, sitting for CELEBREZZE, C.J.