Opinion
No. 89-955
Submitted May 17, 1990 —
Decided October 17, 1990.
Taxation — Real property — Valuation — Fair market value is a fact question for tax authorities — Decision not disturbed by court, when.
APPEAL from the Board of Tax Appeals, Nos. 86-G-1537 and 86-G-1538.
Tudor House Condominiums, a single building containing seventy-four one and two-bedroom condominium units, twenty-six of which represent the subject property, one hundred basement garage spaces, and a swimming pool and tennis courts, was constructed in 1975 on a 4.63-acre tract of land in the city of North Olmsted, Cuyahoga County.
For tax year 1985, the Cuyahoga County Auditor determined the true value of the subject property owned by appellant, Eastcreek Corporation, to be $1,161,200. Both Eastcreek and appellees, Board of Education of North Olmsted and city of North Olmsted ("North Olmsted"), filed complaints as to the valuation with the Cuyahoga County Board of Revision. The board of revision agreed with the auditor's valuation of $1,161,200 and North Olmsted appealed to the Board of Tax Appeals ("BTA").
At the hearing before the BTA, North Olmsted offered the testimony of an expert appraiser, Sam D. Canitia. Appellant relied upon the statutory transcript and offered no evidence.
Canitia testified that the highest and best use of the subject property was its current use: condominiums. He also described the three approaches to valuation: the income approach, the cost approach, and the market approach. He stated that the cost approach and the income approach were inappropriate, in view of the use to which the premises was devoted, and that the best and only acceptable method of appraisal was the market approach. He pointed out that there was no need for him to look at other properties beyond those contained in Tudor House Condominiums because the units owned by appellant were identical with those units previously sold in the same condominium complex. Moreover, the witness pointed out that the property was held for sale as condominiums and was not income-producing property. He acknowledged a slight downturn in valuation since the years 1981 and 1982. He estimated that the true value of the subject property was $1,304,000.
The BTA, after analyzing the individual parcels involved and accepting Canitia's approach to valuation but not his estimate of value, determined that the true value of the real estate for the tax year 1985 was $1,264,275.
The cause is before this court upon appeals as of right.
Fred Siegel Co., L.P.A., Fred Siegel, Karen H. Bauernschmidt and Todd W. Sleggs, for appellant.
Kolick Kondzer and Thomas A. Kondzer, for appellees.
The issue in this case is whether the decision of the BTA was reasonable and lawful. We find that it was and affirm its decision.
In the absence of evidence of a recent arm's-length sale between a willing buyer under no compulsion to buy and a willing seller under no compulsion to sell, the testimony of expert witnesses becomes necessary. State, ex rel. Park Investment Co., v. Bd. of Tax Appeals (1964), 175 Ohio St. 410, 25 O.O. 2d 432, 195 N.E.2d 908.
The determination of true value or fair market value of property for tax purposes is a question of fact which is primarily within the province of the taxing authorities. Bd. of Revision v. Fodor (1968), 15 Ohio St.2d 52, 44 O.O. 2d 30, 239 N.E.2d 25, syllabus.
In its consideration of this appeal, it is clear the BTA followed the guidelines for reviewing evidence and making determinations which we set down in paragraphs two, three and four of the syllabus of Cardinal Federal S. L. Assn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (1975), 44 Ohio St.2d 13, 73 O.O. 2d 83, 336 N.E.2d 433.
The BTA criticized Canitia's testimony with regard to the downturn in value, his failure to verify prior sales of condominium units, and his failure to ascertain whether garage space, decorating costs or tangible personal property was included in the sale prices of these condominium units. We believe that this accounts for the BTA's deduction from Canitia's estimate of true value. The BTA's determination of true value of $1,264,275 is not unreasonable or unlawful and it is affirmed.
Decision affirmed.
MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, H. BROWN and RESNICK, JJ., concur.