Summary
In Richter Transfer Co. v. Bowers (1962), 174 Ohio St. 113, also an appeal from the Board of Tax Appeals, this court dismissed an appeal where there was "... not a sufficient compliance with the statutory requirement...."
Summary of this case from Pennsylvania Rd. Co. v. ThomasOpinion
No. 37699
Decided December 19, 1962.
Appeal — From Board of Tax Appeals to Supreme Court — Notice to specify errors complained of — Section 5717.04, Revised Code — Failure to comply with statutory requirements — Ground for dismissal of appeal.
APPEAL from the Board of Tax Appeals.
ON MOTION to dismiss.
The appellant, The Richter Transfer Company, in the performance of heavy construction work, owns and uses heavy construction equipment, the rate of depreciation of which is the issue in this cause. Appellant filed an application for a review and redetermination of an increased personal property tax assessment for the year 1958, contending that the rate of depreciation employed by the Department of Taxation in computing the assessed value of appellant's personal property was inadequate to reflect the true value thereof as of the tax listing date for the year in question.
The Tax Commissioner, finding no error in the assessment made, affirmed the same.
The Board of Tax Appeals, on appeal, affirmed the order of the Tax Commissioner.
An appeal from the Board of Tax Appeals brings the cause to this court for review.
Messrs. Cors, Hair Hartsock, for appellant.
Mr. Mark McElroy, attorney general, and Mr. Joseph L. White, for appellee.
The cause is now before the court on the appellee's motion to dismiss the appeal "for the lack of jurisdiction thereof, for the reason that the notice of appeal has failed to specify the errors complained of, as expressly required under provisions of Section 5717.04, Revised Code."
That section requires that the "notice of appeal shall set forth the decision of the board appealed from and the errors therein complained of."
The notice of appeal in question reads in part:
"Appellant complains of the following errors in said decision:
"1. The decision is contrary to law.
"2. The decision is unreasonable and unlawful.
"3. The decision is not sustained by the evidence, and is contrary to the evidence.
"4. The decision is against the weight of the evidence.
"5. The assessment placed upon the property involved is excessive, contrary to law and the evidence.
"This appeal is filed as of right under the provisions of Section 5717.04 of the Revised Code of Ohio."
Strict compliance with the statutory requirements with respect to appeals provided for in Chapter 5717, Revised Code, is required.
This court is of the opinion that the notice of appeal in the instant case does not sufficiently set forth "the errors therein complained of" and, therefore, is not a sufficient compliance with the statutory requirement. The motion to dismiss is sustained and the appeal is dismissed. Lawson Milk Co. v. Bowers, Tax Commr., 171 Ohio St. 418; Queen City Valves, Inc., v. Peck, Tax Commr., 161 Ohio St. 579.
Appeal dismissed.
WEYGANDT, C.J., ZIMMERMAN, TAFT, MATTHIAS, RADCLIFF and GRIFFITH, JJ., concur.
O'NEILL, J., dissents.
RADCLIFF, J., of the Fourth Appellate District, sitting by designation in the place and stead of HERBERT, J.