Simmons v. Cuyahoga County Bd. of Revision, 97-765

• Citation: 81 Ohio St.3d 47,689 N.E.2d 22
• Decision Date: 11 February 1998
• Docket Number: No. 97-765,97-765
• Parties: SIMMONS, Appellant, v. CUYAHOGA COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION et al., Appellees.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Ohio

Page 47

81 Ohio St.3d 47

689 N.E.2d 22

SIMMONS, Appellant, v. CUYAHOGA COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION et al., Appellees.

No. 97-765.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Submitted Oct. 28, 1997.

Decided Feb. 11, 1998.

Milton L. Simmons, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Simmons contends that the BTA could not fulfill its obligation to determine true value when the BOR did not offer any evidence to justify its valuation. We disagree.

Simmons was the appellant in this matter and therefore the burden was upon him to convince the BTA that his opinion of value was the value that it should accept. In Western Industries, Inc. v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision (1960), 170 Ohio St. 340, 342, 10 O.O.2d 427, 427, 164 N.E.2d 741, 743, we stated, "The burden is on the taxpayer to prove his right to a deduction. He is not entitled to the deduction claimed merely because no evidence is adduced contra his claim." Thus, the burden of persuasion before the BTA was on Simmons, not the BOR.

As the owner, Simmons was competent to present his opinion of the value of his property. Amsdell v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 572, 635 N.E.2d 11. However, the BTA was not required to accept his opinion of value. WJJK Investments, Inc. v. Licking Cty. Bd. of Revision (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 29, 665 N.E.2d 1111.

The BTA found that Simmons did not adequately compare and contrast his property to the property which he was attempting to use as a basis for establishing the true value of his property. In addition, the BTA had serious questions about the comparison methods used by Simmons for valuing his property. Finally, the BTA found that Simmons had not presented competent probative evidence that would demonstrate his right to the value claimed.

The BTA as the finder of fact has wide discretion to determine the weight and credibility of witnesses; thus, it may accept all, part, or none of the testimony of a witness. R.R.Z. Assoc. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 198, 527 N.E.2d 874; Witt Co. v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 155, 573 N.E.2d 661. The burden was on Simmons to produce competent probative factual evidence to persuade the BTA that the value which he proposed was the true value. The BTA found he did not meet his burden.

This court is not a " 'super Board of Tax Appeals' " and does not sit as a trier of fact "de novo." Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Mahoning Cty. Bd. of Revision (1981), 66 Ohio St.2d 398, 400, 20 O.O.3d 349, 351, 422 N.E.2d 846, 848. In Natl. Church Residence v. Licking Cty. Bd. of Revision (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 397, 398, 653 N.E.2d 240, 241, we stated, "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 discretion." No abuse of discretion has been alleged in this case.

Simmons's second contention is that since the BOR presented no evidence, and the BTA rejected Simmons's evidence, the BTA could not affirm the BOR's valuation. We disagree.

In Westlake Med. Investors, L.P. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 547, 660 N.E.2d 467, the BTA rejected the taxpayer's evidence of value and approved the board of revision's valuation. In affirming the BTA's decision we stated, "the BTA may approve a board of revision's value if the taxpayer does not prove a right to a reduction...