In any consideration concerning the exemption from taxation of any property, the burden of proof shall be placed on the property owner to show that the property is entitled to exemption. The fact that property has previously been granted an exemption is not evidence that it is entitled to continued exemption.
O'Keefe v. McClain (Slip Opinion), 2021-Ohio-2186. · cites it 8דR.C. 5715.271 states: In any consideration concerning the exemption from taxation of any property, the burden of proof shall be placed on the property owner to show that the property is entitled to exemption.”
Obetz v. McClain (Slip Opinion), 2021-Ohio-1706, 173 N.E.3d 1200. · cites it 2ד{¶ 15} R.C. 5715.271 provides that “[i]n any consideration concerning the exemption from taxation of any property, the burden of proof shall be placed on the property owner to show that the property is entitled to exemption.”
Strongsville Bd. of Educ. v. Zaino, 751 N.E.2d 996 (Ohio 2001). · cites it 3דThe same “continued exemption” terminology was used again by the General Assembly when it enacted R.C. 5715.271 in 1985 (Am.Sub.H.B. No. 321, 141 Ohio Laws, Part II, 3243, 3245).”
Newman v. Levin, 896 N.E.2d 995 (Ohio 2008). “See also R.C. 5715.271 (“the burden of proof shall be placed on the property owner to show that the property is entitled to exemption”).”
Cincinnati Cmty. Kollel v. Testa, 2013-Ohio-396, 985 N.E.2d 1236. “The BTA’s Decision Was Unlawful and Unreasonable {¶ 18} The kollel asserts that the BTA erred as a matter of law in construing and applying R.C. 5709.121(A)(2). The kollel also maintains that the record does not support the BTA’s decision.”
Cincinnati Cmty. Kollel v. Levin, 863 N.E.2d 147 (Ohio 2007). “121(A) — the statutory provision on which the kollel relies in claiming a tax exemption — states that “[r]eal property * * * belonging to a charitable or educational institution” may be eligible for an exemption if the property is used in specified ways.”
A. Schulman, Inc. v. Levin, 116 Ohio St. 3d 105 (2007). · cites it 2דSee also R.C. 5715.271 (“the burden of proof shall be placed on the property owner to show that the property is entitled to exemption”).”
Strongsville Bd. of Edn. v. Zaino, 92 Ohio St. 3d 488 (2001). · cites it 3דThe same “continued exemption” terminology was used again by the General Assembly when it enacted R.C. 5715.271 in 1985 (Am.Sub.H.B. No. 321, 141 Ohio Laws, Part II, 3243, 3245).”
Athens Cnty. Auditor v. Wilkins, 106 Ohio St. 3d 293 (2005). “That provision states: “A technical college district *295 shall not be required to pay any taxes or assessments upon any real or personal property acquired, owned, or used by” the district.”
Southside Cmty. Dev. Corp. v. Levin, 895 N.E.2d 551 (Ohio 2008). “A property’s taxable or exempt status typically depends upon a close examination of the property’s owner and its particular use; an owner must offer proof of exemption for each tax year in which the property’s taxable status is at issue.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.