Cincinnati City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Testa (Slip Opinion), 2014 Ohio 4647

On September 14, 2006, Cincinnati filed a real-property tax exemption application for the Duke Energy Center under R.C. 5709.08.
The tax commissioner initially granted the exemption for 2006 and denied exemptions for 2007–2011, citing privatized management under a private contractor as defeat of public-use requirement.
The Cincinnati City School District Board of Education did not participate timely in 2006, nor did it file notification or a timely statement to participate under R.C. 5715.27.
During the appeal, the General Assembly enacted amended R.C. 5709.084 in 2011, creating a retroactive exemption tailored to the Duke Energy Center and deeming the law remedial.
The BTA remanded the case to the tax commissioner to apply the new statute, and the school board attempted to intervene but was denied.
In 2012, after remand, the tax commissioner granted the exemption under amended 5709.084, and the BTA dismissed the school board’s appeal for lack of statutory standing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether school board had standing to appeal under 5717.02	School board argues it may intervene to challenge the constitutionality of the exemption.	Board failed to satisfy 5715.27(C) and thus lacked standing to appeal.	Board lacked standing; BTA dismissal proper.
Whether failure to timely file under 5715.27(C) defeats jurisdiction	Discretionary extensions under 5715.27(D) could cure late filing.	Extensions do not retroactively cure untimely filings; timing is jurisdictional.	Timeliness requirements are jurisdictional; late filing cannot be cured retroactively.
Whether the commissioner’s authority to extend time renders jurisdiction	Authority to extend time justifies intervention despite late filing.	Authority to extend does not create jurisdiction after substantial delay.	No; extension power does not create jurisdiction in this case.

Strongsville Bd. of Edn. v. Zaino, 92 Ohio St.3d 488, 751 N.E.2d 996 (2001) (Ohio Sup. Ct. 2001) (standing/jurisdiction hinges on timely filing in exemption proceedings)
Am. Restaurant & Lunch Co. v. Glander, 147 Ohio St.3d 147, 70 N.E.2d 93 (1946) (Ohio Sup. Ct. 1946) (statutory rights and standing in administrative appeals)
Sout h-Western City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Kinney, 24 Ohio St.3d 184, 494 N.E.2d 1109 (1986) (Ohio Sup. Ct. 1986) (requirement to raise constitutional issues at first opportunity)
Victoria Plaza Ltd. Liab. Co. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 86 Ohio St.3d 181, 712 N.E.2d 751 (1999) (Ohio Sup. Ct. 1999) (standing is jurisdictional in administrative appeals)
Sheldon Rd. Assocs., L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 131 Ohio St.3d 201, 963 N.E.2d 794 (2012) (Ohio Sup. Ct. 2012) (filing deadlines are jurisdictional in valuation/assessment appeals)
Performing Arts School of Metro. Toledo, Inc. v. Wilkins, 104 Ohio St.3d 284, 2004-Ohio-6389, 819 N.E.2d 649 (2004) (Ohio Sup. Ct. 2004) (jurisdictional time requirements in exemption proceedings)