Cahill v. Ohio Tax Commr.
2016 Ohio 7648
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Glenn and Jodie Cahill sued the Ohio Tax Commissioner alleging R.C. 5747.08(E) violated equal protection by forcing "husband and wife" who filed joint federal returns to file joint Ohio returns while (at the time) some same-sex couples filing joint federal returns were permitted to file separate Ohio returns.
- The Cahills sought class certification and disgorgement/refunds of alleged overpaid state taxes.
- The Tax Commissioner moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) (and raised venue/standing/administrative remedy arguments).
- The trial court granted dismissal, holding the statute on its face distinguishes only married v. single persons and that any disparate treatment resulted from IRS Revenue Ruling 2013-17 and the Tax Commissioner’s information release (IT 2013-01), not the statute itself.
- The Cahills appealed raising a facial equal protection challenge to R.C. 5747.08(E).
- The majority of the appellate panel affirmed dismissal; one judge dissented, arguing the statute’s gendered “husband and wife” language produced a facial equal protection problem for the relevant period (Oct. 2013–June 2015).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 5747.08(E) is facially violative of equal protection by singling out "husband and wife" and producing disparate treatment between heterosexual married filers and same-sex married filers who filed joint federal returns | Cahill: statute is facially discriminatory because it forces heterosexual married couples who file joint federal returns to file joint Ohio returns, while same-sex married couples (per federal treatment after Windsor/Rev. Rul. 2013-17) were permitted to file separate Ohio returns, producing unequal treatment and a tax penalty for heterosexual couples | Testa: statute distinguishes married vs. single persons; at relevant times Ohio did not recognize same-sex marriage, so the statute applied equally to all persons recognized as married under Ohio law; any disparity arose from federal rulings and administrative guidance, not the statute | Majority: statute is not facially discriminatory; classification rationally related to legitimate interest (file status tied to who is legally married under Ohio law); dismissal affirmed. Dissent: would reverse, finding a facial equal protection problem during the period when federal rules allowed joint federal filing for same-sex couples but Ohio did not recognize those marriages. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tiefel v. Gilligan, 40 Ohio App.2d 491 (Ohio Ct. App. 1974) (upholding tying state filing procedure to federal filing to reduce audit costs and evasion)
- O'Brien v. Univ. Community Tenants Union, 42 Ohio St.2d 242 (Ohio 1975) (12(B)(6) dismissal standard—claim cannot state relief absent any set of facts)
- Mitchell v. Lawson Milk Co., 40 Ohio St.3d 190 (Ohio 1988) (on presuming factual allegations true on motion to dismiss)
- Perrysburg Twp. v. Rossford, 103 Ohio St.3d 79 (Ohio 2004) (12(B)(6) dismissal reviewed de novo)
- Groch v. GMC, 117 Ohio St.3d 192 (Ohio 2008) (equal protection: non-suspect classifications reviewed under rational-basis standard)
- Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (U.S. 2015) (States must license and recognize same-sex marriages)