Columbus City School District Board of Education v. Testa
130 Ohio St. 3d 344
| Ohio | 2011Background
- Property is owned by the State for OSU and is located south of campus; it includes four residential units and a first-floor retail space.
- OSU acquired title through the White bequest intended to fund veterinary fellowships; MoU documents funding to the David Stuart White Fellowship Fund.
- Income from the property is paid by commercial and residential tenants, with Buckeye Realty managing rents; proceeds are to be used to reimburse acquisition costs and fund the fellowship.
- Tax exemption was granted to OSU under R.C. 3345.17, despite the property including a McDonald’s lease and a later credit-union lease.
- The Columbus City School District Board of Education challenged the exemption, arguing exemption requires use of the property to support the university, not merely income produced by the property.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 3345.17 allows exemption based on income from the property. | OSU argues income used for university purposes supports exemption. | School board argues exemption hinges on use of the property itself, not income. | Exemption limited to use of the property; income use alone does not qualify. |
| Do Kinney and Univ. of Cincinnati control whether income-producing property can be exempt. | OSU relies on Kinney and Univ. of Cincinnati to justify exemption. | School board contends those cases do not support exempting property whose income is from private tenants. | Those cases do not establish exemption based solely on income; must show property use relates to university activities. |
| Does legislative history of R.C. 3345.17 support a broad interpretation permitting income-based exemption? | OSU points to broader language and legislative intent to allow income-based exemptions. | School board emphasizes legislative background favors a use-based reading; amendments removed income-based references. | Legislative history supports narrow reading; not permissible to rely on income alone. |
| Does the property's location or bequest status alone entitle OSU to exemption? | OSU argues proximity to campus and scholarship bequest favor exemption. | Location and bequest do not override the use-based requirement. | Location and bequest do not establish entitlement; no current or prospective use operationally related to university activities. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kinney v. Ohio State Univ. Bd. of Trustees, 5 Ohio St.3d 173 (1983) (rental property as a secondary use; supports university activities)
- University of Cincinnati v. Limbach, 51 Ohio St.3d 6 (1990) (property planned to serve university medical center or campus; rent used for university purposes)
- Ares, Inc. v. Limbach, 51 Ohio St.3d 102 (1990) (exemption statutes construed; strict interpretation against taxpayer)
- Anderson/Maltbie Partnership v. Levin, 127 Ohio St.3d 178 (2010) (exemption language must be strictly construed; not expanded by other statutes)
- Church of God in N. Ohio, Inc. v. Levin, 124 Ohio St.3d 36 (2009) (limits on exemptions; language and scope controls)