Rocco v. Cuyahoga County Board of Revision

Ohio Supreme Court

Rocco v. Cuyahoga County Board of Revision

642 N.E.2d 348, 71 Ohio St. 3d 103

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 7, 1994

DocketNo. 93-1455

StatusPublished

This text of 642 N.E.2d 348 (Rocco v. Cuyahoga County Board of Revision) 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

Rocco v. Cuyahoga County Board of Revision, 642 N.E.2d 348, 71 Ohio St. 3d 103 (Ohio 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We affirm the decision of the BTA.

The BTA found that the evidence before it included a conveyance fee statement of March 19, 1990, indicating a consideration of $38,000 for transfer of the property. There was no evidence before the BTA to suggest that the transfer was other than an arm’s-length transaction.

“The fair market value of property for tax purposes is a question of fact, the determination of which is primarily within the province of the taxing authorities, and this court will not disturb a decision of the Board of Tax Appeals with respect to such valuation unless it affirmatively appears from the record that such decision is unreasonable or unlawful.” Cardinal Fed. S. & L. Assn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (1975), 44 Ohio St.2d 13, 73 O.O.2d 83, 336 N.E.2d 433, paragraph four of the syllabus. See, also, Crow v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 55, 552 N.E.2d 892.

[104]*104The BTA, citing Zindle v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Revision (1989), 44 Ohio St.3d 202, 542 N.E.2d 650, observed that “[t]he burden is upon the party seeking a reduction to prove his right to the reduction in value.” Appellant did not sustain his burden. The BTA’s decision, being neither unreasonable nor unlawful, is affirmed.

Decision affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

We affirm the decision of the BTA.

The BTA found that the evidence before it included a conveyance fee statement of March 19, 1990, indicating a consideration of $38,000 for transfer of the property. There was no evidence before the BTA to suggest that the transfer was other than an arm’s-length transaction.

“The fair market value of property for tax purposes is a question of fact, the determination of which is primarily within the province of the taxing authorities, and this court will not disturb a decision of the Board of Tax Appeals with respect to such valuation unless it affirmatively appears from the record that such decision is unreasonable or unlawful.” Cardinal Fed. S. & L. Assn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (1975), 44 Ohio St.2d 13, 73 O.O.2d 83, 336 N.E.2d 433, paragraph four of the syllabus. See, also, Crow v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 55, 552 N.E.2d 892.

[104]*104The BTA, citing Zindle v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Revision (1989), 44 Ohio St.3d 202, 542 N.E.2d 650, observed that “[t]he burden is upon the party seeking a reduction to prove his right to the reduction in value.” Appellant did not sustain his burden. The BTA’s decision, being neither unreasonable nor unlawful, is affirmed.

Decision affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

642 N.E.2d 348, 71 Ohio St. 3d 103, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rocco-v-cuyahoga-county-board-of-revision-ohio-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack