Mid American Mach. Tools, Inc. v. Lindley, No. 81-316

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM; FRANK D. CELEBREZZE; HOLMES
• Citation: 428 N.E.2d 433,22 O.O.3d 303,68 Ohio St.2d 91
• Docket Number: No. 81-316
• Decision Date: 02 December 1981
• Parties: , 22 O.O.3d 303 MID AMERICAN MACHINE TOOLS, INC., Appellant, v. LINDLEY, Tax Commr., Appellee.

Page 91

68 Ohio St.2d 91 428 N.E.2d 433, 22 O.O.3d 303 MID AMERICAN MACHINE TOOLS, INC., Appellant,
v.
LINDLEY, Tax Commr., Appellee. No. 81-316. Supreme Court of Ohio. Dec. 2, 1981.

Fred J. Milligan, Jr., Westerville, for appellant.

William J. Brown, Atty. Gen., and Barbara E. Vest, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The threshold issue in this appeal is whether the Board of Tax Appeals lacked jurisdiction to rule on the merits of appellant's appeal because appellant had not, pursuant to R.C. 5717.02, sufficiently specified the grounds for relief in its notice of appeal.

R.C. 5717.02 provides, in pertinent part, that appeals from final determinations by the Tax Commissioner " * * * shall be taken by the filing of a notice of appeal with the board (of tax appeals) * * *. The notice of appeal * * * shall also specify the errors therein complained of." (Emphasis added.)

In the recent case of Lenart v. Lindley (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 110, at page 114, 399 [428 N.E.2d 436] N.E.2d 1222, we noted that "(i)n considering this question of specificity in the past, this court has held that R.C. 5717.02 is a jurisdictional enactment and that adherence to the conditions and procedure set forth in the statute is essential. E. g., American Restaurant & Lunch Co. v. Glander (1946), 147 Ohio St. 147, 70 N.E.2d 93; Kent Provision Co. v. Peck (1953), 159 Ohio St. 84, 110 N.E.2d 776; Queen City Valves v. Peck, supra, (161 Ohio St. 579 (120 N.E.2d 310)); Ladas v. Peck (1954), 162 Ohio St. 159, 122 N.E.2d 12; Painesville v. Lake County Budget Comm. (1978), 56 Ohio St.2d 282, 383 N.E.2d 896; Hafner & Sons v. Lindley (1979), 58 Ohio St.2d 130, 388 N.E.2d 1240."

In Lenart this court reiterated the position taken in Gochneaur v. Kosydar (1976), 46 Ohio St.2d 59, at pages 66-67, 346 N.E.2d 320, that "(w)e do not choose to retreat from the specificity requirements for notices of appeal enunciated by R.C. 5717.02 and the decisions of this court * * *." Thus, in an unbroken

Page 95

line of cases this court has required taxpayers to specify their objections to the commissioner's rulings in accordance with R.C. 5717.02. The position of this court today is the same as it was in 1954, when we stated that "(t)his court has no disposition to be hypertechnical and to deny the right of appeal on captious grounds but it cannot ignore statutory language which demands that certain conditions be met to confer jurisdiction upon an appellate tribunal." Queen City Valves v. Peck, supra, 161 Ohio St. at pages 583-584, 120 N.E.2d 310. Against this background we now assess appellant's claim that it complied with the specificity requirement imposed by R.C. 5717.02.

Appellant contends that its notice of appeal stating, "(w)e are in complete disagreement with the sales tax assessment for the following items inasmuch as we feel that they have, in the most part, been completed as requested," coupled with an itemized list of the transactions at issue, apprised the Board of Tax Appeals with sufficient specificity of the alleged errors in the commissioner's assessment. Appellant's counsel concedes that "the phrase used by the Taxpayer in this...