Cruz v. Testa (Slip Opinion)
144 Ohio St. 3d 221
Ohio2015Background
- Cruz-Samsa Corporation, pet-store Business, faced 27 sales-tax delinquency assessments under R.C. 5739.33; Cruz was a co-owner and officer.
- Seven of the 27 corporate assessments were successfully served by certified mail to the corporation’s headquarters or business address.
- The corporation’s addresses on the vendor’s-license application included corporate HQ, business location, and Cruz’s and Samsa’s personal addresses.
- During 2012, Cruz was personally assessed at the 2504 Lee Road address after follow-up ordinary-mail notices.
- Cruz petitioned for reassessment arguing (i) she was not responsible for the corporation’s fiscal duties and (ii) there was no valid service on the corporation.
- The Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) upheld the seven correctly served corporate assessments and reversed (on service grounds) as to the other 20, prompting appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cruz’s notice of appeal properly invoked jurisdiction. | Cruz asserted the issue of lack of corporate service and its effect on personal liability. | Testa argued the notice failed to specify error about the personal assessments. | Jurisdictionproper; notice suffices in context of objections raised. |
| Whether a failure to perfect service on the corporation defeats the derivative personal assessment against Cruz. | Cruz contends lack of corporate service invalidates derivative liability. | Testa relies on Rowland to bar corporate-service challenges in derivative liability. | Derivative assessments may be challenged by attacking corporate service; Rowland limited but not dispositive here. |
| Whether seven corporate assessments were validly served on Cruz-Samsa Corporation. | Cruz argues service on Samsa or other corporate targets was insufficient. | Testa maintains service was properly completed for seven assessments. | Seven assessments show certified-mail service; 20 require further evidence of perfected service. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rowland v. Collins, 48 Ohio St.2d 311 (1976) (derivative liability; oscitancy doctrine; due process in corporate assessments)
- Castellano v. Kosydar, 42 Ohio St.2d 107 (1975) (proof of service; notice; due process in tax assessments)
- Lenart v. Lindley, 61 Ohio St.2d 110 (1980) (error specificity on appeal; jurisdictional limits)
- Ellwood Engineered Castings Co. v. Zaino, 98 Ohio St.3d 424 (2003) (when specifying error is required on appeal)
- WCI Steel, Inc. v. Testa, 129 Ohio St.3d 256 (2011) (reading notice of appeal in context of objections; not formulaic)
- Global Knowledge Training, L.L.C. v. Levin, 127 Ohio St.3d 34 (2010) (jurisdictional assignments must be read in context, not by form alone)
- Gaston v. Medina Cty. Bd. of Revision, 133 Ohio St.3d 18 (2012) (recorded statutory transcript and service considerations in tax cases)