Crown Communication, Inc. v. Testa
136 Ohio St. 3d 209
| Ohio | 2013Background
- Crown Communication, Inc. and Crown Castle GT Co. owned Ohio cellular towers and faced a 2006 personal-property tax increase.
- The tax commissioner issued final-assessment certificates in 2009 after Crown requested review of the increased assessment.
- The final assessments included appeal instructions directing pursuit of a petition for reassessment with the tax commissioner.
- Crown followed those instructions and filed a petition for reassessment, not an appeal to the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA).
- The commissioner later dismissed Crown’s petition as untimely, claiming the assessment was final and subject to BTA review.
- The BTA affirmed, and Crown appealed alleging the wrong instructions deprived it of merits review; the issue centered on whether Crown could treat the assessment as preliminary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether wrong instructions allowed treating final as preliminary | Crown argues instructions misled and allowed a preliminary-treatment path. | Commissioner contends misinstruction has no jurisdictional effect and Crown is barred. | Yes; Crown could treat as preliminary and pursue review. |
| Estoppel against the state | Crown relied on the misinstruction to pursue reassessment. | State argues estoppel does not apply against taxing statutes. | BTA correctly rejected estoppel against the state. |
| Sun Refining doctrine applicability | Sun Refining supports delaying start of appeal period due to misdelivery. | Sun Refining is inapplicable here because Crown received notice and instructions. | Inapplicable; Crown’s notice and instructions preserved jurisdiction. |
| Commissioner’s duty to issue correct instructions | Commissioner failed to provide proper appeal instructions, affecting Crown’s rights. | Not explicitly contested; seeks dismissal under statutory rules. | Commissioner’s error does not bar Crown’s right to review; Crown preserved jurisdiction. |
| Effect of Crown following instructions on jurisdiction | Following reassessment instructions should not bar merits review. | Following the instructions to reassessment should be fatal to appeal. | Crown’s conduct preserved jurisdiction to review on the merits; remand for final determination. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ormet Corp. v. Lindley, 69 Ohio St.2d 263 (Ohio 1982) (limited estoppel against the state in tax-law context)
- Recording Devices, Inc. v. Bowers, 174 Ohio St. 518 (Ohio 1963) (no estoppel against the state under taxing statutes)
- Sun Refining & Marketing Co. v. Brennan, 31 Ohio St.3d 306 (Ohio 1987) (agency failure to issue certified copy affects start of appeal period)
- Hal Artz Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 28 Ohio St.3d 20 (Ohio 1986) (administrative reconsideration authority within appeal period)