General Elec. Co. v. DeCourcy

Citation397 N.E.2d 397,60 Ohio St.2d 68,14 O.O.3d 270
Decision Date28 November 1979
Docket NumberNo. 79-21,79-21
Parties, 14 O.O.3d 270 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Appellant, v. DeCOURCY, Auditor et al., Appellees.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Ohio

Syllabus by the Court

The absence of a provision in R.C. 5715.22 regarding the allowance and payment of interest on refunded real estate taxes, collected by a county authority in excess of the amount due precludes the taxpayer from recovering such interest.

The instant cause arises from a judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming a trial court determination that appellant, General Electric Company, is not entitled to recover interest on real estate taxes illegally or erroneously collected from it, and invested for a period of time by appellees, the Hamilton County auditor and treasurer.

The facts are undisputed. For calendar years 1969, and 1971 through 1973, appellant was assessed and paid taxes on its real property located in Hamilton County on the erroneous basis of 1969 instead of 1962 year reproduction costs. During the tax years involved herein, the tax valuation of most other real estate in Hamilton County was based on 1962 reproduction costs. This distinction resulted in substantially and disproportionately higher real estate taxes to appellant than to other taxpayers.

After receiving adverse rulings on its administrative complaints, General Electric appealed to the Court of Appeals, alleging the discriminatory effect of appellees' method of valuation of General Electric's real property. That court found violations of both the Equal Protection Clause and Section 2, Article XII, of the Ohio Constitution, requiring taxation to be uniform. On remand, the board of revision recomputed the tax years involved and ordered a refund to appellant of $648,876.80, which amount represented those taxes illegally or erroneously collected. Appellant demanded interest which the county had collected from investment of the erroneously collected taxes, or interest at the prevailing legal rate, but the county refused to pay. Appellant then instituted this action in the Court of Common Pleas for recovery of the demanded interest. It is noted that all parties agreed by stipulation to the amounts of assessments, investments and the interest involved.

The cause is now before this court pursuant to the allowance of a motion to certify the record.

Beirne & Wirthlin, C. R. Beirne, and Michael A. Fulton, Cincinnati, for appellant.

Simon L. Leis, Jr., Pros. Atty. and Robert W. Worth, Cincinnati, for appellees.

SWEENEY, Justice.

The issue presented by this cause is whether the appellant is entitled to interest on real estate taxes illegally or erroneously assessed against and paid by it. The taxes involved herein were invested by appellees for a period of time before refunding them to appellant, and the interest obtained by the county amounted to $50,958.87.

The trial and appellate courts herein denied appellant's right to interest based primarily on State ex rel. Cleveland Concession Co. v. Peck (1954), 161 Ohio St. 31, 117 N.E.2d 429, the syllabus of which reads as follows:

"Where, as a result of a proceeding under Section 5546-8, General Code (Section 5739.07, Revised Code), a party recovers a refund of sales taxes illegally or erroneously paid by him, he is not entitled to recover interest on the amount of such refund."

The court therein stated further, at page 37, 117 N.E.2d at page 430, that:

"Since a recovery against the state for sales taxes illegally or erroneously assessed and paid can be had only by virtue of the legislative enactment authorizing such recovery, the recovery is limited by the provisions of the statute and cannot be extended beyond those provisions. Since the enactment in Ohio does not provide for the payment of interest on a refund of such taxes, since relator received full recovery of taxes illegally or erroneously assessed and paid, that being the full limit of its recovery under Section 5546-8, General Code (Section 5739.07, Revised Code), and since there is no provision for the payment of interest on the amount recovered, relator is not entitled to recover such interest."

The refund of taxes to appellant in the instant cause was in accordance with R.C. 5715.22, which section likewise makes no provision for the payment of interest, but merely for the remittance of those real property taxes paid by the taxpayer in excess of the amount due.

In the absence of statutory authority, the tax collector, in his role as trustee of public funds, can not disburse any such funds beyond the bounds of his statutorily created trust.

Appellant contends that the holding in Cleveland Concession Co., supra, was based almost solely on the rational of the Wisconsin Supreme Court in Schlesinger v. State (1928), 195 Wis. 366, 218 N.W. 440. Since that court has since repudiated the Schlesinger holding (see Milwaukee v. Firemen's Relief Assn. (1969), 42 Wis.2d 23, 165 N.W.2d 384), General Electric argues that we should likewise overturn Cleveland Concession Co.

However, appellant fails to mention that the General Assembly amended R.C. 5715.22 in 1974, leaving it in substantially unchanged form, more than 20 years after Cleveland Concession Co. was decided. Being aware of that opinion, yet maintaining its silence on the subject of interest, we...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • City of Riverside v. State
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • 6 mai 2016
    ...in valuation of comparable properties over a lengthy period of time violated the Equal Protection Clause); General Electric Co. v. DeCourcy, 60 Ohio St.2d 68, 397 N.E.2d 397 (1979) (dealing with entitlement to interest on, as well as a refund of, real estate taxes wrongly collected). Anothe......
  • Musial Offices, Ltd. v. Cnty. of Cuyahoga
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • 25 novembre 2020
    ...merely for the remittance of those real property taxes paid by the taxpayer in excess of the amount due." Gen. Elec. Co. v. DeCourcy , 60 Ohio St.2d 68, 70, 397 N.E.2d 397 (1979). In DeCourcy , the Ohio Supreme Court held that taxpayers are not entitled to interest on the overpayment of tax......
  • Lewis v. Benson
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • 28 novembre 1979
  • Int'l Bus. Mach.S Corp. v. Levin
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • 5 mai 2010
    ...no interest may be allowed on the 25 percent refunds granted pursuant to R.C. 5739.071(A). See Gen. Elec. Co. v. DeCourcy (1979), 60 Ohio St.2d 68, 69, 14 O.O.3d 270, 397 N.E.2d 397, State ex rel. Cleveland Concession Co. v. Peck (1954), 161 Ohio St. 31, 52 O.O. 476, 117 N.E.2d 429 (absent ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT