Northlake Hills Cooperative, Inc. v. Collins

Ohio Supreme Court

Northlake Hills Cooperative, Inc. v. Collins

340 N.E.2d 407, 45 Ohio St. 2d 13, 74 Ohio Op. 2d 41, 1976 Ohio LEXIS 521

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 14, 1976

DocketNo. 75-564

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 340 N.E.2d 407 (Northlake Hills Cooperative, Inc. v. Collins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Northlake Hills Cooperative, Inc. v. Collins, 340 N.E.2d 407, 45 Ohio St. 2d 13, 74 Ohio Op. 2d 41, 1976 Ohio LEXIS 521 (Ohio 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The sole question is whether the May 28, 1975, dismissal by the Board of Tax Appeals, based upon failure of the taxpayer to invoke jurisdiction of such board, was unreasonable or unlawful.

[15]*15There is no question raised by appellant that it did not receive actual notice of the Tax Commissioner’s dismissal of its petition for reassessment on February 12, 1975. Appellant contends, however, that the 30 day period for filing an appeal, as required by E. C. 5717.02, did not commence until a ruling was made on its request for reconsideration, and it is argued that such appeal period commenced with the letter of the Department of Taxation dated February 28, 1975.

Fineberg v. Kosydar (1975), 44 Ohio St. 2d 1, recently reaffirmed the prior position of this court with respect to the necessity of compliance with the mandatory requirements of E. C. 5717.02, as to the filing of a notice of appeal, in order to invoke jurisdiction of the Board of Tax Appeals. See also Zephyr Room v. Bowers (1955), 164 Ohio St. 287. E. C. 5717.02 requires such notice of appeal to be filed “within thirty days after * * * order by the commissioner has been given * *

The board’s conclusion, after hearing, that such notice of appeal was not timely filed, effectively rejects appellant’s contention that the letter from the Department of Taxation of February 28, 1975, constitutes the final order from which an appeal may be taken. Such conclusion of the board is supported by the record, by the absence of any reconsideration provision in E. C. 5717.02, and by Hileman v. Evatt (1943), 142 Ohio St. 175, wherein an unjournalized letter from a division employee of the Tax Department was held not to have the effect of vacating the last action taken by the commissioner. The last formal act of the commissioner here was the journalized order dated February 4, 1975, which was received by appellant on February 12,1975.

For reason of the foregoing, the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals is affirmed.

Decision affirmed.

O’Neill, C. J., Herbert, Corrigan, Stern, Celebrezze, W, Brown and P- Brown, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

The sole question is whether the May 28, 1975, dismissal by the Board of Tax Appeals, based upon failure of the taxpayer to invoke jurisdiction of such board, was unreasonable or unlawful.

[15]*15There is no question raised by appellant that it did not receive actual notice of the Tax Commissioner’s dismissal of its petition for reassessment on February 12, 1975. Appellant contends, however, that the 30 day period for filing an appeal, as required by E. C. 5717.02, did not commence until a ruling was made on its request for reconsideration, and it is argued that such appeal period commenced with the letter of the Department of Taxation dated February 28, 1975.

Fineberg v. Kosydar (1975), 44 Ohio St. 2d 1, recently reaffirmed the prior position of this court with respect to the necessity of compliance with the mandatory requirements of E. C. 5717.02, as to the filing of a notice of appeal, in order to invoke jurisdiction of the Board of Tax Appeals. See also Zephyr Room v. Bowers (1955), 164 Ohio St. 287. E. C. 5717.02 requires such notice of appeal to be filed “within thirty days after * * * order by the commissioner has been given * *

The board’s conclusion, after hearing, that such notice of appeal was not timely filed, effectively rejects appellant’s contention that the letter from the Department of Taxation of February 28, 1975, constitutes the final order from which an appeal may be taken. Such conclusion of the board is supported by the record, by the absence of any reconsideration provision in E. C. 5717.02, and by Hileman v. Evatt (1943), 142 Ohio St. 175, wherein an unjournalized letter from a division employee of the Tax Department was held not to have the effect of vacating the last action taken by the commissioner. The last formal act of the commissioner here was the journalized order dated February 4, 1975, which was received by appellant on February 12,1975.

For reason of the foregoing, the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals is affirmed.

Decision affirmed.

O’Neill, C. J., Herbert, Corrigan, Stern, Celebrezze, W, Brown and P- Brown, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

340 N.E.2d 407, 45 Ohio St. 2d 13, 74 Ohio Op. 2d 41, 1976 Ohio LEXIS 521, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/northlake-hills-cooperative-inc-v-collins-ohio-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack