The opinion
[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 73 Ohio St.3d 397.]
NATIONAL CHURCH RESIDENCE, APPELLANT, v. LICKING COUNTY BOARD OF
REVISION ET AL., APPELLEES.
[Cite as Natl. Church Residence v. Licking Cty. Bd. of Revision,
1995-Ohio-327.]
Taxation—Real property valuation—Taxpayer has duty to prove the right to a
reduction in value—Board of Tax Appeals has wide discretion in weighing
evidence and credibility of witnesses.
(No. 94-1625—Submitted March 30, 1995—Decided August 30, 1995.)
APPEAL from the Board of Tax Appeals, No. 92-B-1084.
__________________
{¶ 1} National Church Residence, appellant, owns Chimes Terrace, a sixty-
unit apartment complex, in Johnstown, Ohio. For tax year 1991, the appellee
Licking County Auditor determined the true value of Chimes Terrace to be
$1,995,300. National Church filed a complaint with the appellee Licking County
Board of Revision, and the board confirmed the value set by the auditor. National
Church appealed this finding to the Board of Tax Appeals (“BTA”).
{¶ 2} At the BTA, National Church presented the testimony of an expert
appraisal witness. After reviewing the report he prepared concerning this property,
the witness testified that the true value for Chimes Terrace, as of January 1, 1991,
was $1,200,000.
{¶ 3} The BTA rejected this evidence and found that National Church had
not sustained its burden of proving its right to a reduction in value. First, the BTA
found that the expense percentages the witness employed in his income approach
were not reliable because he had not provided any detailed information on the
comparable market expenses. Thus, the BTA rejected this income-approach
analysis. The BTA also criticized the witness’s market-data approach because he
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
had not suitably adjusted comparable sales for time of sale, size of comparable, and
“quality/appeal” of comparables. In summary, the BTA gave little weight to this
rejected market-data information.
{¶ 4} The BTA, finally, found that the true value of the subject property as
of January 1, 1991, was $1,995,5301.
{¶ 5} This cause is now before this court upon an appeal as a matter of right.
__________________
Todd W. Sleggs, for appellant.
Robert L. Becker, Licking County Prosecuting Attorney, and Pauline E.
O’Neill, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellees.
_________________
Per Curiam.
{¶ 6} National Church principally contends that the BTA erred in rejecting
its evidence on expenses. We disagree.
{¶ 7} A taxpayer has the duty to prove his right to a reduction in value.
Zindle v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Revision (1989), 44 Ohio St.3d 202, 203, 542 N.E. 2d
650, 651. Furthermore, the BTA has wide discretion in granting weight to evidence
and credibility to witnesses. We will not reverse the BTA’s determination on
credibility of witnesses and weight given to their testimony unless we find an abuse
of this discretion. Webb Corp. v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Revision (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d
36, 647 N.E. 2d 162.
{¶ 8} We hold that the BTA did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the
evidence on stabilized expenses or any other evidence presented by National
1. In its opinion, the BTA actually wrote that this value was for January 1, 1988. However, we
regard this as a typographical error because all other mentions of the valuation date are for January
1, 1991.
2
January Term, 1995
Church. We further agree with the BTA that National Church failed to sustain its
burden to prove a right to reduction.
{¶ 9} According to the witness, Chimes Terrace’s actual expenses had no
bearing on the stabilized expenses that the witness employed in his income
approach. Thus, the several years of audited income and expense statements
attached to the witness’s report played no role in determining the value of the
property and do not support the stabilized expenses. Moreover, as the BTA
determined, the expenses from the comparable properties were not in any way
detailed so that the BTA could compare expense items.
{¶ 10} Finally, we do not find any merit in National Church’s constitutional
arguments. Trebmal Landerhaven v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (1995), 72
Ohio St.3d 31, 33, 647 N.E.2d 159, 160.
{¶ 11} Accordingly, we affirm the BTA’s decision because it is reasonable
and lawful.
Decision affirmed.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and COOK, JJ., concur.
WRIGHT and PFEIFER, JJ., dissent.
__________________
PFEIFER, J., dissenting.
{¶ 12} In its decision, the Board of Tax Appeals (“BTA”) cites no specific
facts to support its conclusion that the board of revision’s claimed value of the
property is accurate. Instead, the BTA merely asserts that it looked at the statutory
record and found it to be accurate. In contrast, the appellant presented factual
testimony from an appraiser. The fact that the appraiser’s methodology is less than
exemplary does not excuse the BTA from not supporting its conclusion with
evidence. Because the only facts discussed in the BTA’s opinion support the
taxpayer’s valuation of the property, I would reverse the BTA.
WRIGHT, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.
3