Benedict v. Hamilton County Bd. of Revision, 35975
| Decision Date | 18 November 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 35975,35975 |
| Citation | 9 O.O.2d 458,162 N.E.2d 479,170 Ohio St. 62 |
| Parties | , 9 O.O.2d 458 BENEDICT et al., Appellants, v. HAMILTON COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION, Appellee. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Cors, Hair, Hartsock & Schneider and Irving Harris, Cincinnati, for appellants.
C. Watson Hover, Prosecuting Attorney, and Raymond C. Wetherell, Cincinnati, for appellee.
The ultimate question confronting the court on this appeal from the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals is whether the board acted unreasonably or unlawfully in fixing the true value in money of a business property in downtown Cincinnati for tax purposes for the year 1957 at $461,600, ascribing a value of $387,360 to the land and a value of $74,240 to the building erected thereon.
In arriving at such determination the board placed its stamp of approval on a final order of the Board of Revision of Hamilton County which made an identical determination as to tax value and wherein such board of revision reduced the value of the building by $18,560 from that placed thereon by the Auditor of Hamilton County.
In reaching its conclusion the Board of Tax Appeals had the following factors before it: The location of the property in the heart of Cincinnati and its character; its purchase at a partition sale in 1958 for the sum of $533,000; and the testimony of an expert witness that its fair market value on January 1, 1957, was in such amount.
In contesting the tax valuation placed on the property, the appellants claim that the fair market value of the property based upon capitalization of earnings was but $354,200; that the ratio between assessed valuation and the fair market value of real property in Hamilton County on January 1, 1957, was approximately 60 per cent; that in light of such facts there has been gross discrimination against appellants; and that they are justly entitled to a tax valuation on the property as of January 1, 1957, in the amount of $319,800, representing 60 per cent of $533,000, which figure was the highest fair market value of the property on such last named date.
The Board of Tax Appeals has a broad discretion in fixing tax valuations, and this court has said many times that it will not substitute its judgment for that of the board. It is to be borne in mind that the determination of the true value of each parcel of real estate, with the improvements placed on it, is a separate undertaking and does not wholly depend on values accorded other parcels in the same...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cardinal Federal Sav. and Loan Ass'n v. Cuyahoga County Bd. of Revision
...is not required to adopt the valuation fixed by any expert or witness. (Hibschman v. Bd. of Tax Appeals, 142 Ohio St. 47; Benedict v. Bd. of Revision, 170 Ohio St. 62; Shaker Square Co. v. Bd. of Revision, 170 Ohio St. 369, approved and 3. The Board of Tax Appeals is vested with wide discre......
-
WJJK Investments, Inc. v. Licking Cty. Bd. of Revision
...Cty. Bd. of Revision (1982), 70 Ohio St.2d 255, 24 O.O.3d 343, 436 N.E.2d 1033. In Benedict v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision (1959), 170 Ohio St. 62, 63, 9 O.O.2d 458, 459, 162 N.E.2d 479, 480, we stated: "A particular parcel, because of its location and the improvements thereon, may proper......
-
Ratner v. Stark County Bd. of Revision, 85-737
...might include: mode of payment, sale-lease arrangements, abnormal economic conditions and the like. Benedict v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision (1959), 170 Ohio St. 62, 162 N.E.2d 479 ; Ramsey v. Bd. of Revision (1943), 141 Ohio St. 366, 48 N.E.2d 102 ; Janss Corp. v. Bd. of Equalization (197......
-
Independence Sch. Dist. Bd. Of Edn v. Cuyahoga County Bd. Of Revision, No. 94585
...433, paragraph two of syllabus; Hibschman v. Bd. of Tax Appeals (1943), 142 Ohio St. 47, 48, 49 N.E.2d 949; Benedict v. Bd. of Revision (1959), 170 Ohio St. 62, 63, 162 N.E.2d 479; Shaker Square Co. v. Bd. of Revision (1960), 170 Ohio St. 369, 371, 165 N.E.2d 431. The BTA is vested with wid......