Abraitis v. Testa
137 Ohio St. 3d 285
Ohio2013Background
- Abraitis challenges five Ohio individual income tax assessments for tax years 2003–2007 based on IRS-provided income data.
- The Board of Tax Appeals dismissed the reassessment petitions for lack of jurisdiction due to alleged failure to prepay under R.C. 5747.13(E)(3) and because objections were not properly raised.
- The BTA concluded Abraitis had filed returns, which negated the prepayment requirement, and thus dismissed on the merits.
- The tax commissioner argued prepayment was required since no returns were filed, making the petitions jurisdictionally defective.
- The Ohio Supreme Court held Abraitis did not file returns and therefore prepayment was required, leading to dismissal for lack of prepayment.
- The Court remanded with instructions to dismiss the petitions for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prepayment is required for reassessment petitions when no returns were filed | Abraitis argues prepayment is not required because the BTA dismissed on merits | Testa contends prepayment is required under R.C. 5747.13(E)(3) for nonfilers | Yes; prepayment required, petitions dismissed for lack of prepayment |
| Whether Abraitis filed tax returns for years at issue | Abraitis contends no returns were filed | Testa maintains no returns were filed; final determination misstates as if they were | Abraitis did not file returns |
| Whether exceptions to prepayment apply to Abraitis’s nonfilers | Abraitis seeks to fit within exceptions allowing nonprepayment | Testa argues exceptions do not apply because no nexus or de minimis liability shown | Exceptions not satisfied; prepayment required |
| Whether the BTA properly dismissed for failure to raise specified objections | Abraitis contends objections were raised in petitions | Testa asserts objections not properly raised before commissioner and thus jurisdiction lacking | Issue deemed moot due to prepayment ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- Am. Fiber Sys., Inc. v. Levin, 125 Ohio St.3d 374 (2010-Ohio-1468) (addressing preservation of issues and jurisdiction in tax cases)
- W.T. Grant Co. v. Lindley, 50 Ohio St.2d 7 (1977) (jurisdictional prerequisites and prepayment concepts in tax actions)
- Pre-Fab Transit Co. v. Bowers, 176 Ohio St. 163 (1964) (early precedent on dismissal for lack of jurisdiction due to prepayment)
- Niemeyer v. Collins, 45 Ohio St.2d 63 (1976) (early jurisdictional principles in tax assessments)
- Crown Communications, Inc. v. Testa, 136 Ohio St.3d 209 (2013-Ohio-3126) (jurisdiction over administrative appeals from tax assessments)
- Marysville Exempted Village School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Union Cty. Bd. of Revision, 136 Ohio St.3d 146 (2013-Ohio-3077) (precedent on jurisdictional issues and factual inference in tax cases)