State ex rel. Methodist Book Concern v. Guckenberger

• Decision Date: 27 October 1937
• Docket Number: 26578.
• Parties: STATE ex rel. METHODIST BOOK CONCERN v. GUCKENBERGER, Auditor.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

10 N.E.2d 1001

133 Ohio St. 27

STATE ex rel. METHODIST BOOK CONCERN v. GUCKENBERGER, Auditor.

No. 26578.

Supreme Court of Ohio

October 27, 1937

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Under the provisions of section 5570-1, General Code, the Tax Commission has exclusive authority to declare property exempt, but the county auditor has authority in any year thereafter to strike property items from the exempt list and place them on the taxable list.

2. The county auditor, in striking property items from the exempt list, is performing a ministerial function, and the aggrieved party may appeal to the Tax Commission under the provisions of section 5616, General Code. Therefore, writ of prohibition will not issue to prohibit the county auditor from transferring items from the exempt to the taxable list since there are other adequate remedies available.

This was an original action in prohibition instituted in the Court of Appeals of Hamilton county by the appellant as relator. A demurrer to the petition was sustained, and, the relator not desiring to plead further, the petition was dismissed.

The relator, Methodist Book Concern, a corporation, alleged in its petition that on June 19, 1934, certain property which it owned in Cincinnati, Hamilton county, Ohio, was declared exempt by the Tax Commission of Ohio. The significant portion of the order reads in part:

'The commission, therefore, consents to the exemption prayed for and that the property above described be entered upon the list of property in said county which is exempt from taxation for ax year 1934 and thereafter as long as said property is used for the purpose stated in the application on which this exemption is granted.'

No appeal was taken from that order, and, accordingly, in 1934 the auditor of Hamilton county placed the property of the relator on the exempt list.

In the petition, which was filed October 24, 1936, the relator alleged that the respondent, as auditor of Hamilton county declared his intention to and would, unless restrained and prohibited therefrom, place the property on the taxable list. The prayer of the petition asked that the auditor be restrained and prohibited from assuming jurisdiction, from hearing and determining the liability to or exemption from taxation of the property, and from entering any finding in respect thereto upon the records in his office.

The cause is before this court upon appeal from the order sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the petition of the relator.

Harry J. Koehler, Jr., of Hamilton, and M. C. Slutes, of Cincinnati, for appellant.

Dudley Miller Outcalt, Pros. Atty., Walter M. Locke, and Greg. H. Williams, all of Cincinnati, for appellee.

GORMAN Judge.

The determination of this cause depends upon the construction of two sections of the General Code, which are as follows:

Section 5616: 'Any person, board or officer authorized by this act to file complaints with the county board of revision may complain to the Tax Commission of Ohio at any time prior to the thirty-first day of December in any year, of the determination of a county auditor respecting the liability of any property to taxation in that year, or its exemption therefrom. The commission shall hear such complaint and determine whether the property complained of is subject to taxation and certify its findings to the county auditor, who shall correct the tax list and duplicate accordingly.' (Italics ours.)

Section 5570-1: 'It shall be the duty of the county auditor to make a list of all the property, both real and personal, in his county, and including moneys, credits and investments in bonds, stocks, or otherwise, which is exempted from taxation under §§ 3410-6, 4759, 5349, 5350, 5351, 5352, 5353, 5353-1, 5356, 5357, 5359, 5361, 5362, 5363, 7915-1, 10093, 10101, 10105 and 10192 of the General Code. In each case in addition to the name of the owner, such list shall show the value of the property exempted and a statement in brief form of the reason for or ground on which such exemption has been granted. It shall be corrected annually by adding thereto such items of property as may have been exempted during the year and by striking therefrom such items as shall have lost their right of exemption and which shall be reentered on the taxable list. After this act takes effect no additions shall be made to such exempt lists nor additional items of property exempted under any of the sections enumerated herein without the consent of the tax commission,...