Equity Dublin Assocs. v. Testa (Slip Opinion)
28 N.E.3d 1206
Ohio2014Background
- Two for-profit landlords (collectively "Equity Dublin") leased portions of two office buildings to Columbus State Community College located in different school districts; Equity Dublin applied for property-tax exemption for the leased building space.
- Equity Dublin sought exemption primarily under statutes relating to community colleges (R.C. 3354.15 / 3358.10) and also relied (in proceedings) on the general public-college exemption (R.C. 5709.07(A)(4)).
- The Tax Commissioner denied exemption under R.C. 3354.15 (owner-based community-college exemptions) and also denied under R.C. 5709.07(A)(4) because the property was held by a for-profit landlord and R.C. 5709.07(B) excludes leasehold estates. Commissioner also cited Anderson/Maltbie.
- The Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) reversed in part, exempting building space used by Columbus State (relying on Cleveland State Univ. v. Perk and Bexley Village) but denying exemption for parking lots.
- On appeal the Ohio Supreme Court reviewed whether Perk controls and whether R.C. 3354.15 precludes claiming exemption under R.C. 5709.07(A)(4); the Court reversed the BTA and held the exemption did not apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (BOE/Tax Commissioner) | Defendant's Argument (Equity Dublin) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 3354.15 (community-college exemption) applies to a for-profit landlord’s property leased to a community college | 3354.15 is the specific statute for community colleges and does not authorize exemption for a for-profit owner/lessor | Equity Dublin argued 3354.15 could provide an alternative ground for exemption | BTA denied 3354.15; Supreme Court declined to consider it on appeal because Equity Dublin failed to cross-appeal that ruling |
| Whether the existence of R.C. 3354.15 precludes consideration of exemption under the more general public-college statute R.C. 5709.07(A)(4) | A specific statute for community colleges is exclusive, so the general public-college exemption cannot apply | Equity Dublin argued R.C. 5709.07(A)(4) can still apply (and point to Perk) and Athens County did not bar consideration | Court held 3354.15 does not automatically preclude consideration under 5709.07(A)(4); Athens County is distinguishable and Perk shows specific statutes don’t necessarily foreclose the general exemption |
| Whether buildings leased by a public college from a for-profit landlord qualify as "buildings connected with" the college under R.C. 5709.07(A)(4) when the college does not own the land | 5709.07(B) and precedents (Case W. Res.) counsel against extending the exemption to leaseholds; public-college exemption should not apply where neither land nor building is owned by the college | Equity Dublin relied on Perk to say buildings leased and used exclusively for college purposes qualify for exemption regardless of owner | Court held Perk is limited: exemption for buildings leased by a college was allowed in Perk because the leased buildings were located on and part of the college’s exempt campus land; where neither building nor land is owned by the college (here), 5709.07(A)(4) exemption does not apply |
| Whether omission of R.C. 5709.07(A)(4) from the exemption application deprived the commissioner/BTA/court of jurisdiction to consider that statute | Commissioner argued failure to cite 5709.07(A)(4) on the application is jurisdictional and bars consideration | Equity Dublin noted commissioner himself addressed 5709.07(A)(4) in his final determinations and statutes/forms do not create a jurisdictional bar | Court held naming the statute on the application is not a jurisdictional prerequisite; substantive consideration was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Cleveland State Univ. v. Perk, 26 Ohio St.2d 1, 268 N.E.2d 577 (1971) (held buildings leased to a state university and standing on the university campus and used exclusively for classroom and faculty offices qualified as "connected with" the university and were tax-exempt)
- Athens Cty. Auditor v. Wilkins, 106 Ohio St.3d 293, 834 N.E.2d 804 (2005) (addressed applicability of specific college-related exemptions and considered exclusivity arguments)
- Case W. Res. Univ. v. Wilkins, 105 Ohio St.3d 276, 825 N.E.2d 146 (2005) (construed 5709.07 issues in the context where a public college was the property owner/lessor; factually distinct from lessee situations)
- Anderson/Maltbie Partnership v. Levin, 127 Ohio St.3d 178, 937 N.E.2d 547 (2010) (plaintiff has burden to show statute clearly expresses exemption; courts will not judicially broaden exemptions)
- Denison Univ. v. Bd. of Tax Appeals, 2 Ohio St.2d 17, 205 N.E.2d 896 (1965) (exemption rationale considered in context of college-owned lands and buildings used for institutional purposes)