NATIONAL CHURCH RESIDENCE, APPELLANT, v. LICKING COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION ET AL., APPELLEES.
No. 94-1625
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
Submitted March 30, 1995—Decided August 30, 1995.
73 Ohio St.3d 397 | 1995-Ohio-327
Taxation—Real property valuation—Taxpayer has duty to prove the right to a reduction in value—Board of Tax Appeals has wide discretion in weighing evidеnce and credibility of witnesses.
{¶ 1} National Church Residence, appellant, owns Chimes Terrace, a sixty-unit apartment complex, in Johnstown, Ohio. For tax year 1991, the appellee Licking County Auditor determined the true value of Chimes Terracе to be $1,995,300. National Church filed a complaint with the appellee Licking County Board of Revision, and the board confirmed the value set by the auditor. National Churсh appealed this finding to the Board of Tax Appeals (“BTA“).
{¶ 2} At the BTA, National Church presented the testimony of an expert appraisal witness. After reviewing the rеport he prepared concerning this property, the witness testified that thе true value for Chimes Terrace, as of January 1, 1991, was $1,200,000.
{¶ 3} The BTA rejected this evidenсe and found that National Church had not sustained its burden of proving its right to a reduction in vаlue. First, the BTA found that the expense percentages the witness employed in his income approach were not reliable because he had not provided any detailed information on the comparable market expеnses. Thus, the BTA rejected this income-approach analysis. The BTA also criticized the witness‘s market-data approach because he
{¶ 4} The BTA, finally, found that the true value of the subjeсt property as of January 1, 1991, was $1,995,5301.
{¶ 5} This cause is now before this court upon an appeal as a matter of right.
Todd W. Sleggs, for appellant.
Robert L. Becker, Licking County Prosecuting Attorney, and Pauline E. O‘Neill, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellees.
Per Curiam.
{¶ 6} National Church principally contends that the BTA erred in rejecting its evidence on expenses. We disagree.
{¶ 7} A taxpayеr has the duty to prove his right to a reduction in value. Zindle v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Revision (1989), 44 Ohio St.3d 202, 203, 542 N.E. 2d 650, 651. Furthermore, the BTA has wide discretiоn in granting weight to evidence and credibility to witnesses. We will not reverse the BTA‘s determination on credibility of witnesses and weight given to their testimony unless we find an abuse of this discrеtion. Webb Corp. v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Revision (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 36, 647 N.E. 2d 162.
{¶ 8} We hold that the BTA did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the evidence on stabilized expenses or any other evidence presented by National
{¶ 9} According to the witness, Chimes Terrace‘s actual expenses had no bearing on the stabilized expenses that the witness employed in his income approach. Thus, the several years of audited income and expense statements attached to the witness‘s report played no role in determining the value of the property and do not support the stabilized expenses. Moreоver, as the BTA determined, the expenses from the comparable proрerties were not in any way detailed so that the BTA could compare exрense items.
{¶ 10} Finally, we do not find any merit in National Church‘s constitutional arguments. Trebmal Landerhaven v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 31, 33, 647 N.E.2d 159, 160.
{¶ 11} Accordingly, we affirm the BTA‘s decision because it is reasonable and lawful.
Decision affirmed.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and COOK, JJ., concur.
WRIGHT and PFEIFER, JJ., dissent.
PFEIFER, J., dissenting.
{¶ 12} In its dеcision, the Board of Tax Appeals (“BTA“) cites no specific facts to support its conclusion that the board of revision‘s claimed value of the prоperty is accurate. Instead, the BTA merely asserts that it looked at the statutory record and found it to be accurate. In contrast, the appellant рresented factual testimony from an appraiser. The fact that the appraiser‘s methodology is less than exemplary does not excuse the BTA from not supporting its conclusion with evidence. Because the only facts discussed in the BTA‘s opinion support the taxpayer‘s valuation of the property, I would rеverse the BTA.
WRIGHT, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.