Fair Store Co. v. Board of Revision

61 N.E.2d 209, 145 Ohio St. 231, 145 Ohio St. (N.S.) 231, 30 Ohio Op. 454, 1945 Ohio LEXIS 414

• Court: Ohio Supreme Court
• Decided: May 9, 1945
• Docket: 30251
• Status: Published

Opinion

By the Court.

Appellant makes no claim that the county auditor in any wise discriminated against it in arriving at the true value in money of its property. The sole basis of its claim is that the buildings were assessed 'at an amount in excess of their true value in money.

Both the board of revision and the Board of Tax Appeals found (1) that appellant failed to sustain that claim and (2) that the true value in money of the buildings in the year 1943 was $91,000.

We are asked to reverse the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals.

In the case of Smith v. Board of Revision of Washington County, 138 Ohio St., 564, 37 N. E. (2d), 386, it was held:

“In an appeal to the Supreme Court under Section 5611-2, General Code, from a decision of the Board of Tax Appeals fixing the true value of real property for the purposes of taxation, the court must find such decision unreasonable or unlawful upon tbe record and the evidence to reverse or modify tbe same.”

Tbe statute grants to' tbe Board of Tax Appeals wide discretion in arriving at a valuation and tbis court bas repeatedly said tbat it will not substitute its judgment for tbat of tbe Board of Tax Appeals.

In tbe case of Citizens Building Co. of Cleveland v. Board of Revision of Cuyahoga County, 141 Ohio St., 47, at page 52, 46 N. E. (2d), 413, it is held:

“Tbis court bas no power to substitute its judgment for tbat of tbe Board of Tax Appeals but determines only whether tbe valuation fixed by tbat board it reasonable and lawful. * * *” See Ramsey v. County Board of Revision of Franklin County, 141 Ohio St., 366, 48 N. E. (2d), 102.

From a careful examination of tbis record it is apparent tbat tbe Board of Tax Appeals gave due consideration to tbe evidence and, attaching to the board’s decision tbe presumption of good faith and validity to which it is entitled, we find no basis for tbe conclusion tbat it is unreasonable or unlawful. Therefore such decision should be and hereby is affirmed.

Decision affirmed.

Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Bell, Williams, Turner., Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur.