Johnson v. Clark Cty. Bd. of Revision
2014 Ohio 329
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Johnson appeals a Clark County BOR determination of taxable value for tax year 2010 of his 154.61-acre farm, asserting CAUV-based value, home-site, and outbuilding values were miscalculated.
- BOR approved auditor’s value; CAUV, AP1, AP3, and homesite issues were contested at a June 2011 hearing with input from county officials and Chris Simpson (Soil & Water) guidance.
- Johnson offered CAUV calculation materials and a May 2010 bulletin from the Ohio Department of Taxation to support his position.
- BTA held Johnson’s CAUV evidence inadequate to change the CAUV determination and remanded to BOR to show how CAUV was calculated.
- BTA affirmed auditor’s values for AP1, AP3, and homesite, but remanded for reliable, probative demonstration of CAUV calculation and potential adjustment, with Johnson’s total true value then remaining $513,330 and taxable value $103,920.
- The central dispute concerns whether CAUV tables and per-acre values were properly applied and whether the homesite and outbuildings were valued correctly under the relevant administrative rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CAUV valuation was properly determined | Johnson argues CAUV values were not based on correct soil types and per-acre values | BOR/BTA relied on auditor CAUV calculations and tables | Remanded for BOR to show reliable CAUV calculation |
| Whether the homesite was correctly valued | Johnson contends 2.5 acres and utility costs yield $10,000 homesite value | Auditor’s $20,000 homesite value was proper | BTA did not abuse; stays with auditor value, remand for CAUV process separately |
| Whether AP1 and AP3 outbuildings were correctly valued | Johnson claims replacement-cost and condition justify lower values | Auditor’s valuations supported by record; credibility issues unresolved | BTA did not err; values deemed not credible; remand limited to CAUV calculation issues |
| Whether BOR/BTA properly followed statutory procedures on CAUV complaints | Johnson asserts BOR failed to decide CAUV issue and contact Tax Commissioner | BTA noted BOR decision and did not have power to grant summary judgment | Remand to BOR to demonstrate CAUV calculation and adjust if warranted |
| Whether the valuing framework complied with governing statutes and administrative codes | Johnson argues procedures misapplied CAUV rules; data unreliable | Auditor’s method reflects CAUV framework and per-code procedures | Remand to ensure CAUV calculation aligns with 5703-25-34 et seq. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dayton-Montgomery Cty. Port Auth. v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Revision, 113 Ohio St.3d 281 (Ohio 2007) (auditor actions presumed valid within jurisdiction; burden on taxpayer to prove deduction or value)
- Ameritech Publishing, Inc. v. Wilkins, 111 Ohio St.3d 114 (Ohio 2006) (BTA must determine factual issues with probative evidence; court will affirm if supported)
- Simmons v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 81 Ohio St.3d 47 (Ohio 1998) (BTA may approve if evidence supports valuation; owner’s opinion not always credible)
- WJJK Investments, Inc. v. Licking Cty. Bd. of Revision, 76 Ohio St.3d 29 (Ohio 1996) (owner testimony as to value may be disregarded if not credibly proven)
- Meijer, Inc. v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Revision, 75 Ohio St.3d 181 (Ohio 1996) (cost approach and replacement cost guidance for building valuations)
- Dayton-Montgomery Cty. Port Auth. v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Revision, (same as above) (2007) (see above)