Dauch v. Erie Cty. Bd. of Revision (Slip Opinion)
149 Ohio St. 3d 691
Ohio2017Background
- Three consolidated appeals by Erie County (auditor and Board of Revision) contest BTA decisions reducing 2013 tax valuations for three Sandusky residential properties purchased by Gale Dauch (trustee and individually).\
- Dauch purchased the properties in Nov. 2011, Sept. 2012, and Sept. 2013 and submitted purchase documents to the BOR but waived personal attendance at BOR hearings.\
- The BOR retained the auditor’s valuations at each hearing; Dauch appealed to the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA).\
- The certified statutory transcripts before the BTA included conveyance-fee statements and other documents showing the sale prices.\
- The BTA concluded each sale was a recent arm’s-length transaction, reduced the valuations to the purchase prices, and the county appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio.\
- The county argued (1) the BTA improperly considered conveyance-fee statements not presented to the BOR, (2) Dauch failed to meet his burden because he did not appear, (3) the county had no chance to rebut, and (4) statutory amendments give taxing authorities discretion to disregard sale prices.
Issues and Key Cases Cited
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Dauch) | Defendant's Argument (County) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BTA could consider conveyance-fee statements in the certified transcript though Dauch didn’t present them to the BOR | The statements were part of the certified transcript and properly before the BTA | The BTA erred because the documents were not presented to or relied on by the BOR | BTA properly considered them; county cannot complain about defects in records it certified and did not seek to amend |
| Whether a taxpayer must appear at the BOR hearing to satisfy the initial burden showing an arm’s-length sale | Waiving appearance is permissible; providing basic sale documentation suffices | Taxpayer’s absence prevents meeting initial burden and shifts burden to auditor/BOR | Taxpayer need not appear; a light initial burden is met by basic documentation showing a recent qualifying sale |
| Whether meeting the initial burden shifts the burden of production to the county to rebut the arm’s-length character of the sale | Once Dauch showed facially qualifying sales, the county had to produce rebuttal evidence | The rule improperly shifts original burden to auditor/BOR | Court affirmed that after a proponent meets a light initial burden, the opposing party must go forward with rebuttal; ultimate burden unchanged |
| Whether post‑purchase statutory amendments allowing discretion to consider sale price required BTA to reject sale prices absent other evidence | Sale prices demonstrated value; statutory change did not alter outcome where county offered no alternative valuation | Amendments permit BOR/auditor to disregard sale prices and thus the BTA erred by adopting sale prices automatically | Court did not decide statutory-change issue on merits because county offered no alternative valuation; BTA decision affirmed since sale prices were sole evidence of value |
Key Cases Cited
- Cincinnati School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision, 677 N.E.2d 1197 (Ohio 1997) (presumption that a facially qualifying sale meets arm’s-length and shifts burden to opposing party to rebut)
- Cummins Property Servs., L.L.C. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 885 N.E.2d 222 (Ohio 2008) (describing documentary proof that can satisfy initial burden)
- FirstCal Indus. 2 Acquisitions, L.L.C. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 929 N.E.2d 426 (Ohio 2010) (taxpayer attendance and evidence expectations)
- Mason City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Warren Cty. Bd. of Revision, 4 N.E.3d 1027 (Ohio 2014) (use of auditor records among documents showing sales)
- Worthington City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 918 N.E.2d 972 (Ohio 2009) (deed and conveyance-fee as sufficient sale documentation)
- Cannata v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 62 N.E.3d 144 (Ohio 2016) (party cannot complain about defects in records it prepared and certified)
- Akron City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Revision, 9 N.E.3d 1004 (Ohio 2014) (standard of review for BTA legal questions)
- Olmsted Falls Bd. of Edn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 909 N.E.2d 597 (Ohio 2009) (deference to evidentiary weight findings)