BTA hearing in Ohio

2016Corp. v. Zaino, 95 Ohio St.3d 11, 16 , 764 N.E.2d 1015 (2002). {¶ 27} Here, the tax commissioner’s reliance on the Krehnbrinks’ Ohio residency was not raised until the commissioner’s counsel notified the Krehnbrinks by email just over one month before the second BTA hearing.

2016Corp. v. Zaino, 95 Ohio St.3d 11, 16 , 764 N.E.2d 1015 (2002). {¶ 27} Here, the tax commissioner’s reliance on the Krehnbrinks’ Ohio residency was not raised until the commissioner’s counsel notified the Krehnbrinks by email just over one month before the second BTA hearing.

2006Though this court is “ ‘not disposed to deny review by a hypertechnical reading of the notice,’ ” MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Limbach (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 195, 197 , 625 N.E.2d 597 , quoting Buckeye Internatl., Inc. v. Limbach (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 264, 268 , 595 N.E.2d 347 , the notice in this case, just like Cousino’s posthearing briefs, provided no indication that Cousino was seeking an R.C. 5739.02(B)(13) exemption before the BTA.

2006Though this court is “ ‘not disposed to deny review by a hypertechnical reading of the notice,’ ” MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Limbach (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 195, 197 , 625 N.E.2d 597 , quoting Buckeye Internatl., Inc. v. Limbach (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 264, 268 , 595 N.E.2d 347 , the notice in this case, just like Cousino’s posthearing briefs, provided no indication that Cousino was seeking an R.C. 5739.02(B)(13) exemption before the BTA.

2016Bd. of Revision, BTA No.2011-1760, 2014 WL 2708165 (Apr. 22, 2014), which the BTA decided the same day as this case. {¶ 3} Our decision in the Rite Aid appeal, issued today, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2016-Ohio-371 , ___ N.E.3d ___, explains the significance of Meijer Stores, and reading the BTA decision here in light of that explanation pinpoints a significant omission in the BTA’s analysis.

2016Bd. of Revision, BTA No.2011-1760, 2014 WL 2708165 (Apr. 22, 2014), which the BTA decided the same day as this case. {¶ 3} Our decision in the Rite Aid appeal, issued today, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2016-Ohio-371 , ___ N.E.3d ___, explains the significance of Meijer Stores, and reading the BTA decision here in light of that explanation pinpoints a significant omission in the BTA’s analysis.

2017Bd. of Revision , 90 Ohio St.3d 564 , 740 N.E.2d 276 (2001), does not hold that a party may supplement the record only before the close of the BTA hearing, because there was no BTA hearing in that case, see id. at 566 , 740 N.E.2d 276 .

2017Bd. of Revision , 90 Ohio St.3d 564 , 740 N.E.2d 276 (2001), does not hold that a party may supplement the record only before the close of the BTA hearing, because there was no BTA hearing in that case, see id. at 566 , 740 N.E.2d 276 .

2002Thereafter, pursuant to Cleveland Gear Co. v. Limbach (1988), 35 Ohio St.3d 229 , 520 N.E.2d 188 , and MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Limbach (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 195 , 625 N.E.2d 597 , the BTA affirmed the commissioner’s determination based on its recognition that it lacked jurisdiction to determine GTE’s constitutional challenge.

2002Thereafter, pursuant to Cleveland Gear Co. v. Limbach (1988), 35 Ohio St.3d 229 , 520 N.E.2d 188 , and MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Limbach (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 195 , 625 N.E.2d 597 , the BTA affirmed the commissioner’s determination based on its recognition that it lacked jurisdiction to determine GTE’s constitutional challenge.

1996Bd. of Revision (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 16, 25 , 523 N.E.2d 826, 834 , wherein we stated that “[w]hile the decision of the board of revision should not be colored with partiality, the General Assembly recognized the possible conflict inherent in the roles of the board members as officials who conduct the affairs of the county, and provided for an appeal to the BTA or the court of common pleas.” As a result of the BTA’s presumption of validity, its decision was internally inconsistent.

1996Bd. of Revision (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 16, 25 , 523 N.E.2d 826, 834 , wherein we stated that “[w]hile the decision of the board of revision should not be colored with partiality, the General Assembly recognized the possible conflict inherent in the roles of the board members as officials who conduct the affairs of the county, and provided for an appeal to the BTA or the court of common pleas.” As a result of the BTA’s presumption of validity, its decision was internally inconsistent.

1996If it cannot be so established, then the Board must look to other evidence of value set forth in the record before it.” However, in considering whether the sale was an arm’s-length transaction, and in rejecting Lakeside’s contention that economic necessity had forced Lakeside to purchase the property at an excessive price, the BTA applied the test for economic coercion set forth in Blodgett, supra, 49 Ohio St.3d 243 , 551 N.E.2d 1249 .

1996If it cannot be so established, then the Board must look to other evidence of value set forth in the record before it.” However, in considering whether the sale was an arm’s-length transaction, and in rejecting Lakeside’s contention that economic necessity had forced Lakeside to purchase the property at an excessive price, the BTA applied the test for economic coercion set forth in Blodgett, supra, 49 Ohio St.3d 243 , 551 N.E.2d 1249 .

2018Bd. of Revision , 21 Ohio St.3d 17 , 487 N.E.2d 298 (1986).

2018Bd. of Revision , 21 Ohio St.3d 17 , 487 N.E.2d 298 (1986).

2018Smucker, L.L.C. v. Levin, 113 Ohio St.3d 337 , 2007-Ohio-2073 , 865 N.E.2d 866, ¶ 16 . -8- The Evidence Presented at the BTA Hearing {¶ 16} Ryne and the Kettering BOE presented expert appraisers at the BTA hearing.

2018Smucker, L.L.C. v. Levin, 113 Ohio St.3d 337 , 2007-Ohio-2073 , 865 N.E.2d 866, ¶ 16 . -8- The Evidence Presented at the BTA Hearing {¶ 16} Ryne and the Kettering BOE presented expert appraisers at the BTA hearing.

2018Cruz v. Testa , 144 Ohio St.3d 221 , 2015-Ohio-3292 , 41 N.E.3d 1213 , ¶ 18.

2018Cruz v. Testa , 144 Ohio St.3d 221 , 2015-Ohio-3292 , 41 N.E.3d 1213 , ¶ 18.

2018Bd. of Revision , 122 Ohio St.3d 447 , 2009-Ohio-3479 , 912 N.E.2d 560 , ¶ 24. {¶ 8} Hilliard Station cites Sprout's appraisal, which opines that a definition of "special-purpose property," derived from the Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal , "would apply to the subject property." At the BTA hearing, Sprout clarified that in his view, two of the three elements of that definition applied: the property at issue has "a unique physical design" in that it is laid out as a branch bank, and it has "a layout that particularly adapts its utility to the use for which it was built." {¶ 9} We find no me

2018Bd. of Revision , 122 Ohio St.3d 447 , 2009-Ohio-3479 , 912 N.E.2d 560 , ¶ 24. {¶ 8} Hilliard Station cites Sprout's appraisal, which opines that a definition of "special-purpose property," derived from the Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal , "would apply to the subject property." At the BTA hearing, Sprout clarified that in his view, two of the three elements of that definition applied: the property at issue has "a unique physical design" in that it is laid out as a branch bank, and it has "a layout that particularly adapts its utility to the use for which it was built." {¶ 9} We find no me

2017We discussed the relationship between R.C. 5709.12(B) and 5709.121 at greater length in Rural Health Collaborative, 145 Ohio St.3d 430 , 2016-Ohio-508 , 50 N.E.3d 486, at ¶ 20-22 , and we incorporate that discussion by reference into this opinion.

2017We discussed the relationship between R.C. 5709.12(B) and 5709.121 at greater length in Rural Health Collaborative, 145 Ohio St.3d 430 , 2016-Ohio-508 , 50 N.E.3d 486, at ¶ 20-22 , and we incorporate that discussion by reference into this opinion.

2017Bd. of Revision , 74 Ohio St.3d 415 , 416-417, 659 N.E.2d 1223 (1996). {¶ 12} We reject Buckeye Terminals argument that once the BTA hearing ended, the parties were bound by the record as it then existed.

2017Bd. of Revision , 74 Ohio St.3d 415 , 416-417, 659 N.E.2d 1223 (1996). {¶ 12} We reject Buckeye Terminals argument that once the BTA hearing ended, the parties were bound by the record as it then existed.

2017The Chapel, 129 Ohio St.3d 21 , 2011-Ohio-545 , 950 N.E.2d 142 , ¶ 28. {¶ 35} Finally, the tax commissioner points out that his brief was not filed until after the BTA hearing, and he claims that it was Kinnear’s responsibility to develop the factual record at the BTA to refute the tax commissioner’s final determination.

2017The Chapel, 129 Ohio St.3d 21 , 2011-Ohio-545 , 950 N.E.2d 142 , ¶ 28. {¶ 35} Finally, the tax commissioner points out that his brief was not filed until after the BTA hearing, and he claims that it was Kinnear’s responsibility to develop the factual record at the BTA to refute the tax commissioner’s final determination.

2016Co. v. Maryland, 347 U.S. 340, 342 , 74 S.Ct. 535 , 98 L.Ed. 744 (1954), quoting St.

2016Co. v. Maryland, 347 U.S. 340, 342 , 74 S.Ct. 535 , 98 L.Ed. 744 (1954), quoting St.

2016Coats v. Limbach, 47 Ohio St.3d 114, 116 , 548 N.E.2d 917 (1989); Ohio Adm.Code 5717-1-16(B).

2016Coats v. Limbach, 47 Ohio St.3d 114, 116 , 548 N.E.2d 917 (1989); Ohio Adm.Code 5717-1-16(B).

2016Bd. of Revision, 53 Ohio St.3d 254, 256 , 559 N.E.2d 1351 (1990). 7 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO {¶ 25} Here, the parties received nearly six months’ notice of the BTA hearing date, time, and location.

2016Bd. of Revision, 53 Ohio St.3d 254, 256 , 559 N.E.2d 1351 (1990). 7 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO {¶ 25} Here, the parties received nearly six months’ notice of the BTA hearing date, time, and location.

2016Unlike the commissioner, the BTA properly cited R.C. 5709.121 as being relevant to determining “exclusive” use for a public purpose. 2 But like the tax commissioner, the BTA relied on the case law concerning leased property, particularly Parma Hts., 105 Ohio St.3d 463 , 2005- *162 Ohio-2818, 828 N.E.2d 998 .

2016Unlike the commissioner, the BTA properly cited R.C. 5709.121 as being relevant to determining “exclusive” use for a public purpose. 2 But like the tax commissioner, the BTA relied on the case law concerning leased property, particularly Parma Hts., 105 Ohio St.3d 463 , 2005- *162 Ohio-2818, 828 N.E.2d 998 .

2016This language satisfies the criteria in WCI Steel, Inc. v. Testa, 129 Ohio St.3d 256 , 2011-Ohio-3280 , 951 N.E.2d 421 , paragraph one of the syllabus, and as in WCI Steel, the notice here brings within the court’s jurisdiction all the relevant arguments that the tax commissioner advanced below, including the directory-versus-mandatory argument.

2016This language satisfies the criteria in WCI Steel, Inc. v. Testa, 129 Ohio St.3d 256 , 2011-Ohio-3280 , 951 N.E.2d 421 , paragraph one of the syllabus, and as in WCI Steel, the notice here brings within the court’s jurisdiction all the relevant arguments that the tax commissioner advanced below, including the directory-versus-mandatory argument.

2015Also, “[t]he BTA may investigate to ascertain further facts and make its own findings independent of those of the Tax Commissioner.” Key Servs., id., citing Nestle Co., Inc. v. Porterfield, 28 Ohio St. 2d 190 , 193, 277 N.E.2d 222 (1971). 9 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO {¶ 22} R.C. 5717.011 was enacted in 2003 and was numbered so as to fall between the statutes for appeals from decisions of boards of revision and the tax commissioner, R.C. 5717.01 and 5717.02.

2015Also, “[t]he BTA may investigate to ascertain further facts and make its own findings independent of those of the Tax Commissioner.” Key Servs., id., citing Nestle Co., Inc. v. Porterfield, 28 Ohio St. 2d 190 , 193, 277 N.E.2d 222 (1971). 9 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO {¶ 22} R.C. 5717.011 was enacted in 2003 and was numbered so as to fall between the statutes for appeals from decisions of boards of revision and the tax commissioner, R.C. 5717.01 and 5717.02.