Opinion
No. 29227
Decided December 16, 1942.
Taxation — Budget commission — Determination of current operating expenses needed by each subdivision — Apportionment of estimated undivided local government fund among subdivisions — Section 5546-20, General Code — Appeal from Board of Tax Appeals by city auditor for municipality — Decision affirmed by Supreme Court unless unreasonable or unlawful.
1. Under the provisions of Section 5546-20, General Code, it is the duty of each county budget commission upon due hearing and consideration to determine the amount needed by each subdivision for current operating expenses and to "apportion the estimated amount of the undivided local government fund of the county to and among the several subdivisions in which need for additional revenues has been found in proportion to the amount of the needs of each as so determined."
2. Upon an appeal to this court a decision of the Board of Tax Appeals will not be reversed unless the evidence discloses that the decision is unreasonable or unlawful. (Paragraph 2 of the syllabus in the case of Board of Education of Cleveland Heights City School Dist. v. Evatt, Tax Commr., 136 Ohio St. 283, approved and followed.)
APPEAL from the Board of Tax Appeals.
On November 21, 1941, the Board of Tax Appeals of the Department of Taxation of this state issued a certificate to the auditor of Clark county, Ohio, to the effect that the sum of $154,561.44 had been allocated to it for the fiscal year of 1942 from the "local government fund" realized as proceeds from the excise levied on retail sales of tangible personal property pursuant to Section 5546-2, General Code.
Following this certification the budget commission of the county, acting under the authority conferred by Section 5546-20, General Code, proceeded to determine the amount needed by each subdivision for current operating expenses, and apportioned the above sum as follows:
City of Springfield...........................$ 41,432.03 Clark county.................................. 92,673.27 Townships and villages........................ 20,456.14 ----------- $154,561.44
From the budget commission's order of apportionment the city and the county perfected appeals to the Board of Tax Appeals. No complaint was made by the townships or villages. The order was affirmed.
The case is in this court upon an appeal on behalf of the city.
Mr. Abe Gardner, city solicitor, Mr. M.T. Burnham and Mr. M.E. Spencer, for appellant.
Mr. Otho L. McKinney, for appellees.
The first question presented is procedural.
Before the Board of Tax Appeals the city's appeal was styled "The City of Springfield, Ohio, Appellant, vs. The Budget Commission of Clark County, Ohio, and Harold M. Fross, County Auditor of Clark County, Ohio, Appellees. No. 5289." For some unexplained reason the appeal in this court is captioned "John M. Stritch, as City Auditor of the City of Springfield, Ohio, and its Fiscal Officer, Appellant, vs. The Budget Commission of Clark County, Ohio, and Harold M. Fross, County Auditor of Clark County, Ohio, Appellees." The notice of appeal is similarly worded. Section 5611-2, General Code, provides that an appeal from a decision of the Board of Tax Appeals "may be instituted: by any of the persons who were parties to such appeal or application before the Board of Tax Appeals; or by any other persons to whom the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals appealed from was, by law, required to be certified; or by any other person to whom the Board of Tax Appeals certified the decision appealed from, as authorized by Section 5611-1 of the General Code of Ohio." The appellees correctly point out that Stritch, as auditor, comes within none of the three statutory classifications. He was not a party to the appeal before the Board of Tax Appeals; he was not a person to whom the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals was, by law, required to be certified, inasmuch as he was not, under Section 5625-28, General Code, the county auditor or the city's "taxing authority" — the latter being defined by Section 5625-1 (c), General Code, as "the council or other legislative authority of such municipal corporation;" and the record does not disclose that a copy of the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals was in fact certified to him. However, it is urged by counsel for the appellant that, despite the unfortunate wording of the caption and the notice of appeal, the appeal in truth has been perfected by and for the city of Springfield alone. A majority of the court acquiesces in this assurance.
The substantive question presented by the appellant city is whether the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals affirming the order of the Clark county budget commission is unreasonable or unlawful.
Some of the numerous complaints of the appellant are that neither the budget commission nor the Board of Tax Appeals gave any consideration whatsoever to the appellant's evidence; that the action of the commission and the board was arbitrary and discriminatory; that the determination of the amount needed by each subdivision for current operating expenses was erroneous; and that the commission's apportionment among the various subdivisions "is misleading, inaccurate, incomplete, unreliable, and was totally undeserving of consideration by the Board of Tax Appeals, when it so affirmed the action of the budget commission."
A study of the record fails to substantiate any of the appellant city's contentions. A few illustrations will suffice. It is insisted that the commission arbitrarily determined that the county's needs were the amount requested by it. The commission did so find for the county, but it likewise determined that the city's needs were the sum it requested, and the record discloses evidence to sustain these findings.
The city insists that the commission was in error in estimating the probable receipts from various sources; but, again, there is evidence in the record tending to sustain the conclusions of the commission and the board. In this connection the city complains of an item of $90,000 as proceeds of certain bonds it was said to be planning to refund. It denies any such intention, but there is a conflict in the evidence.
The city likewise insists that the apportionment of the fund between the city and the county was unfair. However, the record discloses that each was allowed 85.45% of the amount each was found to need.
Finally, the city complains that its proffered exhibit 17 was excluded. This was entitled "Analysis of Clark County Budget Commission * * *" and consisted of a computation explanatory of the city's views but without evidentiary value.
Under the evidence presented by the record this court cannot hold the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals was either unreasonable or unlawful.
Decision affirmed.
TURNER, WILLIAMS, MATTHIAS, HART and ZIMMERMAN, JJ., concur.
BELL, J., not participating.