Columbia Toledo Corp. v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of RevisionColumbia Toledo Corp. v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Revision
Taxation—Real property valuation—Appeal to Board of Tax Appeals dismissed when
APPEAL from the Board of Tax Appeals, No. 94-K-815.
{¶ 1} Columbia Toledo Corporation (“Columbia“), appellant, filed a complaint with the Lucas County Board of Revision (“BOR“) to contest its real property tax valuation for the tax year 1993. Prior to the filing of its 1993 complaint, Columbia had filed a complaint for the tax year 1991. The three-year interim period for Lucas County covered the tax years 1991, 1992 and 1993.
{¶ 2} The only witness appearing before the BOR on behalf of Columbia was Les Fleckenstein, an administrative assistant with Columbia Sussex Corporation, the owner of Columbia.
{¶ 3} The BOR dismissed Columbia‘s complaint for failure to comply with
{¶ 4} This cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right.
Baker & Hostetler and George H. Boerger, for appellant.
Anthony G. Pizza, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and Andrew J. Barone, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellees Lucas County Board of Revision and Lucas County Auditor.
Per Curiam.
{¶ 5} The statute in question,
“No person, board, or officer shall file a complaint against the valuation or assessment of any parcel that appears on the tax list if it filed a complaint against the valuation or assessment of that parcel for any prior tax year in the same interim period, unless the person, board, or officer alleges that the valuation or assessment should be changed due to one or more of the following circumstances that occurred after the tax lien date for the tax year for which the prior complaint was filed and that the circumstances were not taken into consideration with respect to the prior complaint: “* * *
“(d) An increase or decrease of at least fifteen per cent in the property‘s occupancy has had a substantial economic impact on the property.” (Emphasis added.)
{¶ 6}
{¶ 7} When Columbia filed its complaint against valuation for the tax year 1993, it answered the question on the complaint form as to why the increase or decrease was justified by stating: “The income from this property does not justify the current taxable value (see letter & data attached).” Attached to the complaint were four pages of data printout of profit and loss statements for the years 1990 through 1993, a one page-summary describing the property, and a one-page letter that summarized and listed selected financial data for the years 1988 through 1993. No occupancy data was set forth in the letter. The letter merely stated that “[the] property has been suffering from low occupancy over the years and the problem has continued from 1990 [t]hrough 1993 as indicated by the financial analysis for the property from 1988 through 1993.”
{¶ 8} It is Columbia‘s contention that the data and attachments to the complaint were sufficient to allege that it was filing under
{¶ 9} Contrary to Columbia‘s contention, it is not the responsibility of a county board of revision to analyze raw data submitted by a taxpayer to determine whether any of the circumstances enumerated in
{¶ 10} The language of
{¶ 11} Based on the foregoing we find the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals to be reasonable and lawful, and it is therefore affirmed.
Decision affirmed.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and STRATTON, JJ., concur.