Neil House Hotel Co. v. Board of Revision of Franklin County
| Decision Date | 18 December 1946 |
| Docket Number | 30786. |
| Citation | 147 Ohio St. 231,70 N.E.2d 646 |
| Parties | NEIL HOUSE HOTEL CO. v. BOARD OF REVISION OF FRANKLIN COUNTY. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Upon an appeal from the Board of Tax Appeals, the Supreme Court will not consider any matter not presented to the Board of Tax Appeals, but will confine the exercise of its revisory jurisdiction to the transcript of the record of the proceedings of such board pertaining to the decision complained of and the evidence considered by the board in making its decision. Section 5611-2, General Code.
2. Under Section 5611-2, General Code, conferring revisory jurisdiction in this court of decisions of the Board of Tax Appeals, it is the duty of this court to affirm the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals if upon hearing and consideration of the record and evidence in the case this court is of the opinion that the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals appealed from is reasonable and lawful.
Appeal from Board of Tax Appeals.
The record shows that the appellant filed applications with the County Board of Revision of Franklin county claiming that two parcels of real estate in the city of Columbus had been overvalued in the sexennial appraisal. These applications resulted in a reduction of building valuations in the amount of $104,940. Thereafter the appellant filed its appeals with the Board of Tax Appeals. The Board of Tax Appeals consolidated the two appeals and granted additional reductions on the two buildings in an amount, as claimed by appellant, of $207,927. Appellee claims that the Board of Tax Appeals made the reduction of $277,730 on the hotel building proper and $25,933 on the service building.
The case is in this court following appeal under Section 5611-2 General Code.
Harry J. Rose, of Cincinnati, and J. F. Hogan and D. Curtis Reed both of Columbus, for appellant.
Ralph J. Bartlett, Pros. Atty., and David B Sharp, both of Columbus, for appellee.
Appellant claims that the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals is unreasonable and unlawful.
The controversy revolves around two expert witnesses, one on behalf of the appellant and one on behalf of the appellee. Appellant's claim is that the Board of Tax Appeals compromised by allowing appellant 'half a loaf' instead of accepting as final the lesser valuation by its own expert.
It would serve no useful purpose to quote the conflicting evidence of these experts both of whom we find to be qualified. Therefore, we shall merely state our conclusions based upon a review of the record including all the testimony offered.
Appellee's expert fixed the cubic foot measure of the hotel building at 5,036,522 cubic feet, while appellant's expert said there were but 4,860,020 cubic feet, a difference of 176,502 cubic feet. Appellant's expert testified that the hotel building contained a gross of 6,058,670 cubic feet, but reduced the figure on account of 'light court areas.' The Board of Tax Appeals accepted appellant's figure.
Appellant's expert fixed a valuation of 47 1/2 cents per cubic foot on the hotel building without the 20 per cent blanket reduction. Appellee's expert fixed a valuation on the hotel building of 65 cents per cubic foot with an allowance of 20 per cent blanket reduction resulting in a net figure of 52 cents per cubic foot.
The board found that 51 cents per cubic foot was a fair reproduction cost of the hotel building for 1944.
Appellant's expert deducted 50 per cent for combined depreciation and obsolescence on the hotel building.
Appellee's expert deducted 30 per cent for ordinary depreciation and 10 per cent for functional depreciation on the same building.
The board found that 45 per cent was a fair figure to be used for total hotel building depreciation.
Appellant's expert fixed the reproduction value of the service building at $89,277. Appellee's expert fixed the replacement value of the service building at $87,641. Appellant's expert took a total of 35 per cent for structural and condition depreciation, 80 per cent depreciation on the fixed machinery and 25 per cent depreciation on the concrete stack. Appellee's expert allowed 30 per cent depreciation on the service building, 50 per cent depreciation of an 80 per cent reproduction cost of the machinery and approximately 50 per cent on 80% of the reproduction cost of the stack.
Appellant's expert found the value of the fixed machinery after depreciation as $29,640. Appellee's expert fixed the sound value of the machinery at $32,000 after allowing depreciation.
The board allowed 35 per cent for depreciation on a valuation of $87,641 for the service building, 65 per cent depreciation for the fixed machinery, equipment and stack.
Appellant says in its brief:
'Granting for this purpose,...
To continue reading
Request your trial