Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

HIBSCHMAN, APPELLANT v. BOARD OF TAX APPEALS ET AL., APPELLEES.

Taxation — Valuation of real estate — Board of Tax Appeals — Board not required to adopt valuation fixed by expert or witness — Taxpayer to prove right to deduction — Actual and not estimated operating expenses considered in determining true value — Liquidation or distress sales of neighboring properties not persuasive.

BY THE COURT.

The Board of Tax Appeals is not required to adopt the valuation fixed by any expert or witness. Citizens Building Co. of Cleveland v. Board of Revision of Cuyahoga County, 141 Ohio St. 47, 51, 46 N.E.2d 413; American Steel Wire Co. of New Jersey v. Board of Revision of Cuyahoga County, 139 Ohio St. 388, 393, 40 N.E.2d 426.

"The burden is upon a taxpayer to prove his right to a deduction and he is not entitled to the full amount of deduction claimed merely because no evidence is adduced contra his claim." Higbee Co. v. Evatt, Tax Commr., 140 Ohio St. 325, 332, 43 N.E.2d 273.

When considering net income as a factor in establishing the true value of income producing property, operating expenses estimated by a witness need not be given the same weight as actual expenses. Liquidation or distress sales of neighboring and comparable properties are not persuasive in fixing the true value in money.

The decision of the Board of Tax Appeals is not unlawful or unreasonable.

Decision affirmed.

WEYGANDT, C.J., MATTHIAS, HART, ZIMMERMAN, BELL and TURNER, JJ., concur.

WILLIAMS, J., not participating.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

HIBSCHMAN v. BD. OF T. A
(Jun 30, 1943)