Simmons v. Cuyahoga County Board of Revision
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
Simmons contends that the BTA could not fulfill its obligation to determine true value when the BOR did not offer any evidence to justify its valuation. We disagree.
Simmons was the appellant in this matter and therefore the burden was upon him to convince the BTA that his opinion of value was the value that it should accept. In Western Industries, Inc. v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision (1960), 170 Ohio St. 340, 342, 10 O.O.2d 427, 427, 164 N.E.2d 741, 743, we stated, “The burden is on the taxpayer to prove his right to a deduction. He is not entitled to the deduction claimed merely because no…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- R.R.Z. Associates v. Cuyahoga County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1988
- Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Mahoning County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1981
- Witt Co. v. Hamilton County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1991
- Amsdell v. Cuyahoga County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1994
- National Church Residence v. Licking County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1995
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by40 opinions
- Dayton-Montgomery County Port Authority v. Montgomery County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 2007
- Colonial Village, Ltd. v. Washington County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 2009
- Dublin City Schools Board of Education v. Franklin County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 2013
- Knickerbocker Properties, Inc. XLII v. Delaware County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 2008
- Colonial Village Ltd. v. Washington County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 2007
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.