From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Weed V Bd. of Revision

Supreme Court of Ohio
Jan 18, 1978
53 Ohio St. 2d 20 (Ohio 1978)

Opinion

No. 77-429

Decided January 18, 1978.

Taxation — Real property — Constitutionality.

APPEAL from the Board of Tax Appeals.

On February 18, 1976, appellant, Thurlow Weed, filed a complaint with the Board of Revision of Franklin County concerning the tax assessment of certain real property owned by him.

The substance of the appellant's complaint to the board of revision was that Section 1, Article I of the Ohio Constitution, precluded the taxation of his real property. No contention was made that his property was overvalued or not valued by uniform rule. The board of revision rejected appellant's argument.

Upon appeal, the Board of Tax Appeals determined that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to consider appellant's constitutional argument, and thus found that the property in issue had been properly valued.

The cause is now before this court upon an appeal as a matter of right.

Mr. Thurlow Weed, pro se. Mr. George C. Smith, prosecuting attorney, Mr. Gene Wetherholt and Mr. Frank A. Ray, for appellee.


Appellant's contention, in essence, is that Section 1, Article I of the Ohio Constitution, is paramount to all other provisions of the Ohio Constitution and precludes the taxation of his real property inasmuch as he has not consented to such taxation.

However, "[t]he power to tax is an attribute of sovereignty and in this state is included in the general legislative power which is conferred by Section 1, Article II of the Constitution, upon the general assembly without limitation." Saviers v. Smith (1920), 101 Ohio St. 132. See, also, Section 2 of Article XII, Ohio Constitution.

This court has long recognized that "[i]t is our duty to give a construction to the constitution as will make it consistent with itself, and will harmonize and give effect to all its various provisions." Hill v. Higdon (1855), 5 Ohio St. 243, 247.

Taxation of real property being constitutionally authorized, the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals is both reasonable and lawful and is, therefore, affirmed.

Decision affirmed.

O'NEILL, C.J., HERBERT, CELEBREZZE, W. BROWN, P. BROWN, SWEENEY and LOCHER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Weed V Bd. of Revision

Supreme Court of Ohio
Jan 18, 1978
53 Ohio St. 2d 20 (Ohio 1978)
Case details for

Weed V Bd. of Revision

Case Details

Full title:WEED, APPELLANT, v. BOARD OF REVISION OF FRANKLIN COUNTY ET AL., APPELLEES

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Jan 18, 1978

Citations

53 Ohio St. 2d 20 (Ohio 1978)
372 N.E.2d 338

Citing Cases

Sullivan v. Monument Homes Inc.

The Supreme Court of Ohio has stated " '[t]he power to tax is an attribute of sovereignty and in this state…

Volbers-Klarich v. Middletown MGT

We reject that proposition because the power to tax lies exclusively with the General Assembly. Saviers v.…