Soyko Kulchystsky, L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (Slip Opinion), 21 N.E.3d 297

Soyko Kulchystsky, L.L.C. (now House Under the Green Bottle, L.L.C.) owned an 18-unit apartment; it sold on Feb. 4, 2011 for $95,000.
Soyko filed a complaint challenging the auditor’s 2010 valuation (asserting the 2011 sale price), which the Cuyahoga County BOR initially dismissed as involving the unauthorized practice of law; Soyko appealed that dismissal to the BTA.
While the 2010 matter was pending on appeal, Soyko filed a separate complaint for tax year 2011 (Mar. 19, 2012) asserting the same sale price as the basis for reducing value.
The BOR later (July 27, 2012) addressed the merits of the 2010 valuation on remand and rejected the $95,000 sale price; the BOR then dismissed the 2011 complaint as a prohibited second filing in the same triennial interim period.
The BTA affirmed dismissal of the 2011 complaint, concluding (1) R.C. 5715.19(A)(3) did not permit filing a complaint for a different tax year and (2) the sale had been “taken into consideration” for 2010 so (A)(2)(a) did not apply.
The Supreme Court of Ohio granted review and held that applicability of the (A)(2)(a) exception must be judged as of the date the second complaint was filed, reversing the BTA and remanding.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a second complaint within a triennial interim is permitted under R.C. 5715.19(A)(2)(a) when based on an arm’s-length sale that post-dates the prior tax-lien date	Soyko: (A)(2)(a) allows the 2011 complaint because the Feb. 2011 sale occurred after the 2010 tax-lien date and had not been taken into consideration at the time the 2011 complaint was filed	School Dist.: The BOR later considered the sale for 2010, so the sale was already taken into consideration and (A)(2)(a) does not apply	Court: (A)(2)(a) is assessed as of the filing date; because the sale had not been considered when Soyko filed for 2011, (A)(2)(a) applied and the BOR had jurisdiction; BTA reversed
Whether R.C. 5715.19(A)(3) (refiling after dismissal for unauthorized practice of law) permits filing a complaint for a different tax year within the same interim	Soyko: (A)(3)’s “notwithstanding” permits refiling despite (A)(2) and thus authorizes the 2011 filing	School Dist.: (A)(3) allows only refiling the same complaint for the same tax year, not a new complaint for a later year	Court: Declined to decide; issue rendered moot by resolution under (A)(2)(a); BTA’s ruling on (A)(3) vacated

Akron Centre Plaza, L.L.C. v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Revision, 128 Ohio St.3d 145 (court treated a sale already considered for prior year as barring reliance on that sale in a later-year complaint)
Elkem Metals Co., Ltd. Partnership v. Washington Cty. Bd. of Revision, 81 Ohio St.3d 683 (a jurisdictional dismissal does not erase that the earlier complaint was filed for purposes of multiple-filing rules)
Sharon Village Ltd. v. Licking Cty. Bd. of Revision, 78 Ohio St.3d 479 (unauthorized-practice-of-law doctrine underlying dismissal of complaint)
Crown Communication, Inc. v. Testa, 136 Ohio St.3d 209 (court’s plenary authority to address jurisdictional issues in tax tribunal appeals)