Opinion
No. 90-1366
Submitted May 2, 1991 —
Decided July 3, 1991.
APPEAL from the Board of Tax Appeals, No. 89-F-314.
Veda Furbay owned 49.6 acres of land that she had devoted exclusively to agricultural use, and the land qualified for, and received, current agricultural use valuation ("CAUV"). She leased a 26.1-acre portion of the subject property to a coal company for surface mining.
When the auditor discovered the mining permit covering this lease, he determined that the property had been converted to nonagricultural use and assessed a recoupment charge for tax year 1988.
Furbay contested the assessment by filing a complaint with the board of revision. The board rejected Furbay's argument, finding that she had not presented sufficient evidence as to what portion of the property was subject to the lease. Furbay then appealed to the Board of Tax Appeals ("BTA").
The BTA, after review of the record and the presentation of evidence, found that the word "exclusively" in the phrase "and devoted exclusively to agricultural use" set forth in R.C. 5713.30(A) means "primarily." The BTA further found that the principle underlying the split listing statute, R.C. 5713.04, was applicable to CAUV and determined that the recoupment charge should be limited to the converted portion.
This case is before this court upon an appeal as of right.
Veda Furbay, pro se. Teaford Rich, Belskis, Coffman Wheeler and Jeffrey A. Rich, for appellant.
For the reasons set forth in Renner v. Tuscarawas Cty. Bd. of Revision (1991), 59 Ohio St.3d 142, 572 N.E.2d 56, we reverse the BTA's decision.
Furbay did not sustain her burden of proving what part of the subject property "was converted to mining and what part continues to qualify for CAUV." Renner, supra, at 145, 572 N.E.2d at 58. The board does not have a duty to investigate a property owner's complaint and "[a] taxpayer, moreover, has the duty to prove his right to a reduction in value. RRZ Associates v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 198, 527 N.E.2d 874." Id.
As in Renner, the property owner "did not provide the exact boundaries of the property that qualify for current agricultural use valuation. Since this value depends so intimately on the exact land under review, * * * [Furbay] did not establish * * * [her] right to reduction and, consequently, may not receive a reduction from the assessed recoupment charge." Id. Accordingly, we reverse the BTA's decision.
Decision reversed.
MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, H. BROWN and RESNICK, JJ., concur.