Western Industries, Inc. v. Hamilton County Bd. of Revision
| Decision Date | 10 February 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 36074,36074 |
| Citation | 10 O.O.2d 427,164 N.E.2d 741,170 Ohio St. 340 |
| Parties | , 10 O.O.2d 427 WESTERN INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellant, v. HAMILTON COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION, Appellee. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Kyte, Conlan, Heekin & Wulsin, Joseph J. Connaughton and Walter F. Hadley, Jr., Cincinnati, for appellant.
C. Watson Hover, Pros. Atty., and Raymond C. Wetherell, Cincinnati, for appellee.
The ultimate question to be determined by the court is whether the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals is unreasonable or unlawful.
Appellant contends that the controversy stems directly from inability to comprehend the term, 'true value in money,' as the term is used in the above-quoted portion of the statute; that the statute is unconstitutional because it has no known or ascertainable meaning; that the Board of Tax Appeals must determine the true value in money; that it abdicated its statutory duty in ruling that its duty was to determine whether appellant carried the burden; and that the valuation adopted was not the true value.
'True value in money' is a constitutional term (Section 2, Article XII), and failure of the statute to further define the term does not render the statute so vague or indefinite as to be meaningless.
In determining the value of property for the purpose of taxation, the assessing body must take into consideration all factors which affect the value of the property. B. F. Keith Columbus Co. v. Board of Revision of Franklin County, 148 Ohio St. 253, 74 N.E.2d 359; American Steel & Wire Co. v. Board of Revision of Cuyahoga County, 139 Ohio St. 388, 40 N.E.2d 426.
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. Higbee Co. v. Evatt, 140 Ohio St. 325, 43 N.E.2d 273; Rollman & Sons Co. v. Board of Revision of Hamilton County, 163 Ohio St. 363, 127 N.E.2d I.
The decision of the Board of Tax Appeals is not unreasonable or unlawful, and it is hereby affirmed.
Decision affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dublin City Sch. Bd. of Educ. v. Franklin Cnty. Bd. of Revision
...Cty. Bd. of Revision, 113 Ohio St.3d 281, 2007-Ohio-1948, 865 N.E.2d 22, ¶ 15, quoting W. Industries, Inc. v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision, 170 Ohio St. 340, 342, 164 N.E.2d 741 (1960). {¶ 15} When a party appeals a board of revision's decision to the BTA, the appellant, whether it be a ta......
-
Port Auth. v. Bd. of Revision
...to the deduction claimed merely because no evidence is adduced contra his claim." W. Industries, Inc. v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision (1960), 170 Ohio St. 340, 342, 10 O.O.2d 427, 164 N.E.2d 741. Because "the burden of persuasion before the BTA was on [the challenger], not the BOR," we hav......
-
Colonial Village v. Washington Cty., 2008-0443.
...property even though the county offered no proof of the validity of its determination); W. Industries, Inc. v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision (1960), 170 Ohio St. 340, 342, 10 O.O.2d 427, 164 N.E.2d 741 (a taxpayer who appeals to the BTA "is not entitled to the deduction claimed merely becau......
-
Cardinal Federal Sav. and Loan Ass'n v. Cuyahoga County Bd. of Revision
...Co. v. Bd. of Revision (1947), 148 Ohio St. 253, 74 N.E.2d 359, paragraph one of the syllabus; Western Industries v. Bd. of Revision (1960), 170 Ohio St. 340, 342, 164 N.E.2d 741; American Steel & Wire Co. of New Jersey v. Bd. of Revision (1942), 139 Ohio St. 388, 392, 40 N.E.2d The price p......