WCI Steel, Inc. v. Testa
129 Ohio St. 3d 256
Ohio2011Background
- WCI Steel, Inc. appeals from a Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) decision dismissing its appeal challenging the value of its personal property under the 302 computation.
- The taxation years at issue are 2001, 2002, and 2003, with values determined as of October 31 of each preceding year due to WCI’s fiscal-year accounting.
- WCI sought a reduced valuation of its manufacturing machinery and equipment (M&E), presenting a May 2003 AccuVal Associates appraisal at the BTA after the commissioner relied on a 2003 sales-comparison study.
- The commissioner had rejected the AccuVal study before the BTA, but the appraisal was introduced at the BTA hearing by WCI,” and the commissioner’s agent reviewed portions of it.
- The BTA dismissed the appeal under Ohio Bell Tel. Co. v. Levin, holding that the notice of appeal failed to specify any error and thus lacked jurisdiction.
- The Ohio Supreme Court reversed, holding that the notice did invoke the BTA’s jurisdiction and that the BTA could consider evidence presented at the BTA, including the AccuVal appraisal, which employed a replacement-cost approach integrated with other valuation methods.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the BTA lacked jurisdiction due to an insufficient notice of appeal | WCI argues notice identified error and sought reduced value. | The commissioner contends Ohio Bell bars the appeal for lack of specific errors. | No; notice sufficiently invoked jurisdiction; BTA could review merits. |
| Whether BTA may receive evidence beyond what the commissioner considered | BTA should consider the AccuVal appraisal presented at the hearing. | Only evidence considered by the commissioner may be used. | BTA may receive additional evidence and consider multiple valuation approaches. |
| Whether the 5703-3-10(B) valuation approaches are 'alternate valuation methods' requiring separate notice | Different valuation approaches are evidence, not separate claims. | Ohio Bell forbids presenting new valuation methods at the BTA. | Not an 'alternate valuation method'; notice need not specify new approaches. |
| Whether Ohio Bell is controlling and whether AccuVal appraisal falls within the BTA's jurisdiction | AccuVal should be admissible as part of reduced-value claim. | Ohio Bell precludes introducing unit-appraisal-type evidence absent prior presentation. | Ohio Bell is distinguishable; AccuVal appraisal permissible under BTA jurisdiction. |
| What standard governs the BTA’s review of the commissioner’s valuation in this context | BTA de novo review allows broader evidentiary submissions. | The commissioner’s valuation should be treated as controlling unless rebutted. | BTA conducts de novo review and may consider evidence beyond the commissioner's record. |
Key Cases Cited
- Abex Corp. v. Kosydar, 35 Ohio St.2d 13 (Ohio 1973) (establishes notice requirements for invoking BTA jurisdiction)
- Ohio Bell Tel. Co. v. Levin, 124 Ohio St.3d 211 (Ohio 2009) (alternate-valuation-method concept; unit appraisal issue in utility context)
- Gen. Motors Corp. v. Wilkins, 102 Ohio St.3d 33 (Ohio 2004) (notice of appeal sufficiency framework for specifying error)
- Key Servs. Corp. v. Zaino, 95 Ohio St.3d 11 (Ohio 2002) (BTA de novo authority; evidence may be admitted beyond commissioner's record)
- Brown v. Levin, 119 Ohio St.3d 335 (Ohio 2008) (contextual reading of notice of appeal; specificity evaluated in light of surrounding circumstances)