Opinion
No. 29357
Decided April 7, 1943.
Taxation — Valuation of real estate — Price paid not controlling factor — Corner lot and valuations on similar properties in locality also considered — Judgment of Supreme Court not substituted for Board of Tax Appeals.
APPEAL from the Board of Tax Appeals.
The appellant, Hester C. Ramsey, is the owner in fee of a certain parcel of real estate situate at the southeast corner of North Third street and East Spring street in the city of Columbus. The property is unimproved and has a frontage of 31.25 feet on North Third street and of 75 feet on East Spring street.
The appellant purchased this property from the Ohio National Bank March 13, 1942, for a total consideration of $3,000. At that time and at the time of the commencement of this action, the premises were valued on the tax duplicate of Franklin county at $15,330. A complaint was filed with the board of revision of Franklin county that this valuation exceeded the true value in money of this land. The board of revision heard the testimony of the appellant and considered also a report by a special board of investigators and on May 12, 1942, reduced the assessed value to $9,000.
An appeal was thereupon prosecuted by the owner of these premises to the Board of Tax Appeals. The evidence offered by the appellant at this hearing before the board of revision was also introduced in the hearing of such appeal and the Board of Tax Appeals also viewed the premises. Evidence was offered on behalf of the board of revision of Franklin county and also the appellant relative to the prices realized in recent sales of other premises in the immediate vicinity of the appellant's land. The report of the special board of investigators, in part relied upon by the board of revision, does not appear as part of the record.
The Board of Tax Appeals, on September 30, 1942, further reduced the assessed value of this parcel to $7,500 and so notified the auditor of Franklin county. An appeal was thereupon perfected by the owner of the land in question to this court from the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals.
Messrs. Vorys, Sater, Seymour Pease, for appellant.
Mr. Ralph J. Bartlett, prosecuting attorney, Mr. David B. Sharp and Mr. Henry L. Holden, for appellees.
The question presented to this court by the appeal is whether the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals was "unreasonable" or "unlawful."
The price paid by the appellant is not a controlling factor in determining the assessed valuation of the property on the tax duplicate. While it is shown by the record that this sale was not a forced sale but one which was consummated after a general offering of the land to the public, this is but one of the factors to be considered. The valuation of these premises must necessarily bear some relation to valuations placed on similar properties in the same locality, and the fact that appellant's property has added value by reason of being a corner lot must also be given due consideration.
The valuation fixed by the Board of Tax Appeals resulted in a reduction of the valuation of the appellant's land to approximately 48 per cent of its original appraised value. This new figure is in line with the appellant's own evidence of the present true value of property in the same vicinity. It is apparent from the record that the Board of Tax Appeals gave due consideration to all evidence affecting the valuation of appellant's property. This court will not substitute its judgment for that of the Board of Tax Appeals, and we cannot conclude from the record in this case that the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals was "unreasonable" or "unlawful." Its decision is therefore affirmed.
Decision affirmed.
WEYGANDT, C.J., MATTHIAS, HART, ZIMMERMAN, BELL, WILLIAMS and TURNER, JJ., concur.