Opinion
Nos. 33332 and 33355
Decided February 23, 1953.
Taxation — Assessing real property — Valuation — Abstract submitted by county auditor — Powers and duties of Board of Tax Appeals — Revaluations ordered by board — Duty of auditor mandatory — Sections 5579, 5612, 5613 and 5615, General Code.
IN MANDAMUS.
APPEAL from the Board of Tax Appeals.
The auditor of Cuyahoga county, pursuant to Section 5612, General Code, filed with the Board of Tax Appeals the 1952 abstract of real property in Cuyahoga county. The Board of Tax Appeals, acting under authority of Section 5613, General Code, disapproved such abstract and ordered that a blanket horizontal increase of 25 per cent be made on all real property in the county.
Case No. 33332 is a proceeding in mandamus instituted in this court by the Board of County Commissioners of Cuyahoga County against the county treasurer, county auditor, and the Board of Tax Appeals, seeking a writ requiring the county auditor and county treasurer to prepare bills and proceed with the collection of taxes on the 1952 tax list as the same was made up at the time the abstract thereof was submitted to the Board of Tax Appeals, and declaring the order of such board requiring a horizontal increase of 25 per cent to be arbitrary, contrary to law and null and void. The issues are presented by the petition and a demurrer thereto on the ground, among others, that the facts stated in the petition do not constitute a cause of action.
Case No. 33355 is an appeal by the county auditor and county treasurer from the order of the Board of Tax Appeals, appellants contending that the order of such board disapproving the 1952 abstract and ordering the blanket horizontal increase of 25 per cent is erroneous, unreasonable and unlawful. Issue is joined by a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that it is not authorized by law.
Mr. Frank T. Cullitan, prosecuting attorney, Mr. Saul S. Danaceau and Mr. A.M. Braun, for relators.
Mr. C. William O'Neill, attorney general, Mr. Robert E. Leach, Mr. Hugh A. Sherer and Mr. Everrett H. Krueger, Jr., for respondents and appellees.
Mr. Frank T. Cullitan, prosecuting attorney, and Mr. George W. Leddon, for appellants.
Section 5579, General Code, imposes upon the Board of Tax Appeals the duty to "direct and supervise the assessment for taxation of all real property in the state." Section 5612, General Code, requires each county auditor to transmit to the Board of Tax Appeals an abstract of all the real property in each taxing district in his county, setting forth the aggregate amount and valuation of each class as it appears on his tax list. To make such direction and supervision effective, Section 5613, General Code, requires that the Board of Tax Appeals shall determine whether the real property and the various classes thereof have been assessed at the true value thereof in money and, if necessary, to revise the valuation as listed by the auditor, in order that every class of property "shall be listed and valued for taxation by an equal and uniform rule at its true value in money."
The Board of Tax Appeals having reviewed and disapproved the abstract in question and having ordered a blanket horizontal increase of 25 per cent, Section 5615, General Code, imposes upon the county auditor a mandatory ministerial duty to comply with that order. Hammond, Treas., v. Winder, Recr., 100 Ohio St. 433, 126 N.E. 409, 24 A.L.R., 318.
Ultimate facts showing a gross abuse of discretion on the part of the Board of Tax Appeals in making the order complained of have not been alleged.
Accordingly, this court, in these proceedings, will not disturb the order of the Board of Tax Appeals.
In case No. 33332, the demurrer to the petition is sustained and a writ denied.
In case No. 33355, since both parties concede that there is no statutory authority for the appeal, the motion to dismiss is sustained.
Writ denied.
Appeal dismissed.
WEYGANDT, C.J., MIDDLETON, MATTHIAS, HART, ZIMMERMAN and STEWART, JJ., concur.
If, as a result of the auditor performing his duty, pursuant to Section 5615, General Code, any property is valued at more than it lawfully should be, a taxpayer, who is affected by such over-valuation, is given adequate remedies to protect his interests. Hammond, Treas., v. Winder, Recr., 112 Ohio St. 158, 147 N.E. 94. See, also, Hammond, Treas., v. Winder, Recr., 100 Ohio St. 433, 446, 126 N.E. 409, 24 A.L.R., 318.
To allow the writ prayed for in the instant case would be to enable parties, who will not be affected adversely by any such over-valuations, to substitute the extraordinary remedy of mandamus for adequate remedies which are available to all who may be so affected by such over-valuations. Cf. State, ex rel. Blackburn, v. Court of Appeals for Belmont County, 154 Ohio St. 464, 96 N.E.2d 297; State, ex rel. Harris, Chief of Police, v. Haynes, Mayor, 157 Ohio St. 214, 105 N.E.2d 53 (syllabus, paragraph three).
It may be observed that the statutory provisions with respect to those remedies are such as to enable prompt collection of the amount of taxes which will not be in dispute without prejudicing taxpayers in contesting any excess over that amount. Section 5609, General Code.
Further, it may be observed that the increase in valuations ordered by the Board of Tax Appeals will not necessarily result in the levy of an additional amount of taxes over the amount levied for the tax year 1951, since a reduction must be made in tax rates by the local taxing authorities, as provided in Section 5548-2, General Code; and a reduction inside the 10-mill constitutional limitation may be made by the local taxing authorities.