Adams v. Testa (Slip Opinion), 152 Ohio St. 3d 207

Ohio Tax Commissioner annually issues a journal entry adopting CAUV (current agricultural-use values) tables that county auditors use as prima-facie valuations for farmland.
CAUVs are derived under administrative rules (Ohio Adm.Code 5703-25-30 to 5703-25-36) after consulting an agricultural advisory committee and holding public notice/hearing.
In 2015 the commissioner updated CAUVs for 24 counties and changed woodland-clearing cost from $500 to $1,000 per acre for those counties; landowners alleged actual clearing costs averaged $3,350/acre and claimed overvaluation.
Landowners appealed the CAUV journal entry to the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA), later asserting the entry was a rule adopted without R.C. Chapter 119 compliance; the BTA dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under R.C. 5717.02 and held the entry is not a rule.
The Supreme Court of Ohio held the BTA erred: the CAUV journal entry is a final determination appealable to the BTA under R.C. 5717.02, but it is not a rule requiring Chapter 119 promulgation. Appeal reinstated and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the CAUV journal entry is an appealable "final determination" under R.C. 5717.02	Adams: The journal entry is a final determination and taxpayers have standing to appeal.	Testa: The entry is not a final determination; it is ministerial/publishing and not subject to R.C. 5717.02.	The entry is a final determination made by the commissioner and is appealable to the BTA under R.C. 5717.02.
Whether taxpayers had standing to appeal the journal entry	Adams: Landowners are taxpayers and may appeal final determinations under R.C. 5717.02.	Testa: Commissioner did not have to give notice to these landowners, so they lack standing.	Landowners are taxpayers and have standing to appeal.
Whether the CAUV journal entry is a "rule" subject to R.C. Chapter 119 rulemaking	Adams: The entry is a rule adopted without required rulemaking and should be vacated.	Testa: The entry implements already-promulgated CAUV rules and is not a rule.	The journal entry implements existing rules and does not create a new rule; it is not subject to R.C. Chapter 119.
Timeliness of appeal to the Supreme Court of Ohio	Adams: Appeal from the BTA’s February 1, 2016 final dismissal was timely.	Testa: Earlier BTA orders (Dec. 9, 2015) were final and appeal was untimely.	Earlier BTA orders were not final; the February 1, 2016 dismissal was the final order and the appeal was timely.

Makowski v. Limbach, 62 Ohio St.3d 412 (certification of estimated payments was a ministerial act, not a final determination)
Cooke v. Kinney, 65 Ohio St.2d 7 (commissioner’s review that left further steps available was not a final determination)
Michelin Tire Corp. v. Kosydar, 38 Ohio St.2d 254 (preliminary assessment subject to statutory review was not a final determination)
Ohio Nurses Assn., Inc. v. State Bd. of Nursing Edn. & Nurse Registration, 44 Ohio St.3d 73 (agency position papers that create new standards are rules requiring promulgation)
Progressive Plastics, Inc. v. Testa, 133 Ohio St.3d 490 (agency valuation method substitution was a rule requiring rulemaking)
State ex rel. Saunders v. Indus. Comm., 101 Ohio St.3d 125 (agency interpretive guidance that merely interprets existing law is not a rule)