Opinion
No. 70-676
Decided May 26, 1971.
Taxation — Personal property — Machinery and equipment — Book value — Depreciation — Evidence — Decision of Board of Tax Appeals affirmed, when.
APPEAL from the Board of Tax Appeals.
Appellant taxpayer manufactures frozen desserts. In its personal property tax returns for 1964, 1965 and 1966, appellant listed its machinery and equipment at book value with depreciation computed on individual lives, the weighted average of which was 8.3 years, or slightly less than 12.5%
The Tax Commissioner applied a 10% annual depreciation to the taxpayer's property notwithstanding that an annual depreciation of 7.5% is the prima facie rate accepted by the Tax Commissioner in the case of a food processing industry.
Appellant appealed to the Board of Tax Appeals, claiming that the true value of its machinery was properly reflected by its book value. The board affirmed, but in its opinion indicated that appellant failed to show the method of disposal of its machinery and equipment or its value at times of disposal, which data was necessary to establish the true value of the machinery and equipment involved.
Upon appeal, this court ( 21 Ohio St.2d 1) found that the information which the board indicated was not shown "is, in fact, contained in appellant's Exhibit `N'," and reversed the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals and remanded the cause to that board "for its reconsideration of the record and for further proceedings according to law."
Upon remand, the board set the cause for hearing and took testimony. After giving consideration to the testimony, Exhibit "N" and other evidence presented at the hearing, the board again affirmed the order of the Tax Commissioner, finding "that the useful life of appellant's machinery and equipment is such that a 10% rate" applied by the Tax Commissioner "is a fair and proper rate."
Messrs. Shawaker Smith and Mr. Charles J. Smith, for appellant.
Mr. William J. Brown, attorney general, and Mr. Dwight C. Pettay, Jr., for appellee.
Appellant now seeks a review by this court of the decision below solely on a question of value, which is peculiarly a question of fact.
"It is not the function of this court to substitute its judgment for that of the Board of Tax Appeals on factual issues." Citizens Financial Corp. v. Porterfield (1971), 25 Ohio St.2d 53.
This court cannot find that the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals is unreasonable or unlawful, and it is, therefore, affirmed.
Decision affirmed.
O'NEILL, C.J., SCHNEIDER, HERBERT, DUNCAN, CORRIGAN, STERN and LEACH, JJ., concur.