2021 Ohio 1664
Ohio2021Background
- William S. Johnson owns farmland in Clark County assessed under the Tax Commissioner’s June 22, 2016 CAUV journal entry adopting a 58‑page unit-value table for 23 counties.
- The table lists soil types with ratings (including drainage) and per-acre CAUV values; some soils have separate values for drained vs. undrained variants and others do not.
- Johnson appealed the commissioner’s entry to the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA), arguing the table improperly fails to list separate (lower) values for undrained Crosby, Kokomo, and Patton soils present on his land.
- The BTA treated the challenge as a claim the commissioner abused his discretion in adopting the table, held Johnson failed to rebut testimony that yield data may include drained and undrained soils, and found no abuse of discretion.
- Johnson appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, which affirmed the BTA: the auditor-rule Johnson cited (Ohio Adm.Code 5703-25-34(E)) governs auditors not the commissioner, and the record does not show the commissioner acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, or unconscionably.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ohio Adm.Code 5703-25-34(E) requires the Tax Commissioner to list undrained variants in the CAUV table | Johnson: the rule requires the commissioner to provide per-acre values for soil types not listed, so undrained variants must be recognized | McClain: the rule governs county auditors’ duties when a soil type is absent from the table, not the commissioner’s table‑making | Held: 5703-25-34(E) applies to auditors’ assessments, not to the commissioner’s adoption of the CAUV table; claim fails |
| Whether the commissioner abused discretion by not listing separate undrained values for Crosby, Kokomo, Patton | Johnson: omission treats undrained soils as if artificially drained, inflating CAUV values and ignoring drainage impacts | McClain: commissioner followed USDA taxonomy/bulletin guidance and relied on advisory committee; yields may include drained and undrained data; typical management assumes drainage | Held: No abuse of discretion—Johnson did not rebut testimony and failed to show the commissioner acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, or unconscionably |
| Whether departing selectively from USDA/OSU bulletin taxonomy (e.g., distinguishing some soils but not others) is arbitrary | Johnson: selective departures show inconsistent treatment and require separate undrained entries because tile drainage is a capital investment | McClain: any departures reflect exercise of judgment after consultation; agency presumptively reasonable | Held: Differential treatment alone does not prove abuse of discretion; presumption favors commissioner’s sound judgment |
| Whether omission of undrained‑only yield data establishes an abuse of discretion | Johnson: high CAUV values for poorly drained soils imply exclusion of yields from undrained land | McClain: testimony showed yield data may have included both drained and undrained yields; typical management assumptions justify focusing on common practices | Held: Unrebutted testimony that data may include drained and undrained yields, and the typical‑management standard, defeat Johnson’s claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Adams v. Testa, 94 N.E.3d 539 (Ohio 2017) (CAUV journal entry is a final determination appealable to the BTA)
- Terraza 8, L.L.C. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 83 N.E.3d 916 (Ohio 2017) (definition of true value as market sales price)
- Renner v. Tuscarawas Cty. Bd. of Revision, 572 N.E.2d 56 (Ohio 1991) (process for compiling CAUV unit‑value table)
- Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Evatt, 54 N.E.2d 132 (Ohio 1944) (commissioner’s valuation determinations presumed valid absent proof to the contrary)
- Ashland Cty. Commrs. v. Ohio Dept. of Taxation, 590 N.E.2d 730 (Ohio 1992) (tax commissioner exercises a high degree of official judgment)
- J.M. Smucker, L.L.C. v. Levin, 865 N.E.2d 866 (Ohio 2007) (BTA applies abuse‑of‑discretion standard to commissioner’s discretionary acts)
- Valentine v. Conrad, 850 N.E.2d 683 (Ohio 2006) (abuse of discretion defined as unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable)