BD. OF REVISION v. FEDERAL RESERVE BANK, 16 Ohio St.2d 42 (1968)


242 N.E.2d 571

CUYAHOGA COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF CLEVELAND, APPELLEE.

No. 68-285Supreme Court of Ohio.
Decided December 4, 1968.

Taxation — Real property — Valuation — True value, determined by Board of Tax Appeals — Decision, supported by record, not disturbed.

APPEAL from the Board of Tax Appeals.

This appeal concerns the taxable value of the Federal Reserve Bank Building, located at the corner of East Sixth Street and Superior Avenue in the city of Cleveland, Cuyahoga County, Ohio. The Auditor of Cuyahoga County assessed the premises for each of the three years in question as follows: Land $528,130; building $4,363,630; total $4,891,760. The owners filed complaints with the Board of Revision of Cuyahoga County, which board, after hearing, upheld the auditor’s assessment. Upon appeal by the owners, the Board of Tax Appeals found the taxable value of the premises to be:

Year Land Building Total
1964 $461,370 $2,106,390 $2,567,760 1965 503,100 2,155,140 2,658,240 1966 545,220 2,182,440 2,727,660

This cause is before this court upon appeal by the Board of Revision of Cuyahoga County from the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals.

Mr. John T. Corrigan, prosecuting attorney, Mr. Thomas P. Cyrus and Mr. Richard A. Goulder, for appellants.

Messrs. Forrester Kovanda, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

The appellant contends that the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals is unreasonable and unlawful

Page 43

because the board failed to consider all the evidence in determining the true value in money of the subject-property and because the board rejected all the testimony of the appellant’s expert witness.

A complete and careful examination of the entire record in this cause discloses that the finding of the Board of Tax Appeals is supported by creditable and substantial evidence and that the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals is not unreasonable or unlawful.

The decision of the board is, therefore, affirmed on authority of Bd. of Revision v. Fodor, 15 Ohio St.2d 52.

Decision affirmed.

TAFT, C.J., ZIMMERMAN, MATTHIAS, O’NEILL, HERBERT and BROWN, JJ., concur.