70 N.E.2d 891
Nos. 30657 and 80658Supreme Court of Ohio.
Decided December 18, 1946.
Taxation — Exemption of real property — Board of Tax Appeals without jurisdiction to consider application — Unless filed prior to December 31st of your exemption claimed — And county treasurer certifies prior taxes and penalties paid — Application to disclose when exempt use began — And unpaid taxes and assessments levied after property acquired by applicant.
1. The Board of Tax Appeals is without jurisdiction to consider an application for exemption of real property from taxation unless such application is filed prior to the thirty-first day of December in the year for which exemption is claimed. (Pfeiffer et al., Trustees of Akron Public Library, v. Jenkins et al., Board of Tax Appeals, 141 Ohio St. 66, approved and followed.)
2. The Board of Tax Appeals, by virtue of the provisions of section 5570-1, General Code, is without jurisdiction to consider an application for exemption of real property from, taxation to which is attached a certificate or affidavit executed by the county treasurer whereby it is disclosed that taxes and penalties levied and assessed against such real property prior to the date of the application are unpaid and the application fails to disclose when the property began its use for the exempt purpose or that the unpaid taxes, assessments, interest or penalties were levied subsequent to the date of the acquisition of the property by the applicant.
APPEALS from the Board of Tax Appeals.
These two cases were presented together and will be disposed of in one opinion. Case No. 30657 involves the question whether certain property is entitled to exemption from taxation for the year 1944, and case No. 30658 involves the question of remission of unpaid taxes assessed against the same property.
Pursuant to Section 5616, General Code, an application was filed some time after May 1, 1945, by the Most Reverend James A. McFadden, Bishop of Youngstown Diocese, addressed to the auditor of Mahoning
Page 226
county, Ohio, claiming exemption from taxation of the real estate described therein. The same application was filed with the Board of Tax Appeals on October 31, 1945, and contains inter alia, the following statements:
“Application is hereby made for the exemption from taxation for the year 1944 of the following described property situated in Youngstown Taxing District, Mahoning county, Ohio. * * *
“Said property was purchased on the 9th day of November, 1943 * * * for the consideration of $4,250.
“The present structure was completed on or about the 1st day of October, 1944, and in description is as follows:
“Dimensions 2 stories * * * stone and brick. * * *
“Said premises are and have been since the 9th day of November, 1943, used for the following purposes, to wit:
“Building and grounds attached for proper occupancy used exclusively for public worship.”
The exemption of the real property is claimed under favor of Section 5349, General Code.
The treasurer’s certificate provided for by the terms of Section 5570-1, General Code, reads as follows:
“Treasurer’s Certificate.
“I hereby certify that taxes, assessments, penalties and interest on the within described premises have not been paid in full to and including last half, 1944.
“Frank E. Cailor,
“Treasurer.”
The county auditor’s finding with reference to the claim for exemption reads in part as follows:
“On the 3 day of August, 1945, the within described property was inspected and found to be used for the purposes set forth in the foregoing application and I therefore find that the following part of the property
Page 227
set forth should be exempted from taxation, beginning with the duplicate year 1945: * * *
“C. L. No. 5036 50’x150′ — All.
“C. L. No. 5037 150’x200′ — All.
“C. L. No. 184 197’x 20′ — All.
“Geo. W. Jones, Jr.,
“County Auditor.”
The application and evidence disclose that in 1943 the board of education of Youngstown, Ohio, sold to Bishop McFadden a school building which was thereafter converted into a parish church. The application contains contradictory statements as to the date when the property first began its use for public worship. At the hearing no evidence was offered upon that subject. The only testimony offered in support of the application was upon the question of use of the building, which disclosed that the main floor was used exclusively for public worship and that two other rooms in such structure were used as living quarters by the parish priest.
In case No. 30658 the record discloses that $445.02 taxes and penalties had accrued prior to the date when the application was filed with the Board of Tax Appeals, to wit, October 31, 1945.
The Board of Tax Appeals denied the application for exemption upon the ground that the property was not being used exclusively for public worship and having so concluded also denied the application for remission of taxes. Thereupon separate appeals were filed in this court.
Mr. Peter B. Betras, for appellant.
Mr. Hugh S. Jenkins, attorney general, and Mr. Daronne R. Tate, for appellees.
BELL, J.
The appellant claims that the decisions of the Board of Tax Appeals are unreasonable and unlawful.
Page 228
The appellees claim that the Board of Tax Appeals was without jurisdiction to consider the applications for the following reasons: (1) The application requesting exemption for the year 1944 was not filed until 1945, and (2) the provisions of Section 5570-1, General Code, were not complied with.
So far as disclosed by the record, no question of jurisdiction was raised before the Board of Tax Appeals. However, under the familiar rule that the question of jurisdiction of the subject matter may be raised at any stage of a proceeding, we shall address our attention first to the question of jurisdiction.
Section 5616, General Code, provides as follows:
“Any person, board or officer authorized by this act to file complaints with the county board of revision may complain to the Tax Commission of Ohio at any time prior to the thirty-first day of December in any year, of the determination of a county auditor respecting the liability of any property to taxation in that year, or its exemption therefrom. The commission shall hear such complaint and determine whether the property complained of is subject to taxation and certify its findings to the county auditor, who shall correct the tax list and duplicate accordingly.”
This court had occasion to consider and construe Section 5616, General Code, in the case of Pfeiffer et al., Trustees of Akron Public Library, v. Jenkins et al., Board of Tax Appeals, 141 Ohio St. 66, 46 N.E.2d 767, wherein it was held:
“Under the provisions of Section 5616, General Code, an application for the exemption of property from taxation for any year may be filed with the Board of Tax Appeals of Ohio at any time prior to the thirty-first day of December of that year; and the consideration and decision of the board as to that application is limited to that year.”
Page 229
By force of the language used in Section 5616, General Code, and the construction placed thereon in the Pfeiffer case, supra, the conclusion is inescapable that the Board of Tax Appeals was without jurisdiction to consider a claim for exemption of real property from taxation for the year 1944 where the application was filed after December 31 of that year.
Coming now to a consideration of the second contention made by the Attorney General.
Section 5570-1, General Code, provides in part as follows:
“* * * The Board of Tax Appeals shall not consider an application for exemption of property under any of the sections enumerated herein unless the application has attached thereto a certificate or affidavit executed by the county treasurer certifying that taxes, assessments, penalties and interest levied and assessed against the property sought to be exempted have been paid in full to the date upon which the application for exemption is filed.
“Provided, however, that taxes, penalties and interest which have accrued after the property began its use for the exempt purpose but in no case prior to the date of acquisition of the title to said property by applicant, may be remitted by the county auditor, with the consent of the Board of Tax Appeals.”
One of the sections enumerated in Section 5570-1, is Section 5349, General Code.
In construing Section 5570-1, General Code, in the case o Ursuline Academy of Cleveland v. Board of Tax Appeals, 141 Ohio St. 563, 49 N.E.2d 674, it was held:
“Under the proviso in Section 5570-1, General Code, the Board of Tax Appeals has jurisdiction to consider an application for exemption from taxation where the application or evidence before the board discloses that
Page 230
the only unpaid taxes, penalties and interest due on the property sought to be exempted are such as may be remitted by the county auditor with the consent of the Board of Tax Appeals if the board consents to the exemption.”
In the instant case the record does not disclose clearly when the property began its use for the claimed exempted purpose but does disclose that taxes and penalties amounting to $445.02 were unpaid as of August 23, 1945.
Therefore the rule announced and applied in the Ursuline Academy case, supra, can have no application to the factual situation presented by this record.
The rule to be applied here is announced in Ursuline Academy of Cleveland v. Board of Tax Appeals, 141 Ohio St. 559, 49 N.E.2d 680, wherein it was held:
“The Board of Tax Appeals may not consider an application for exemption of property under Section 5349 or Section 5353, General Code, unless the application for exemption has attached to it a certificate or affidavit executed by the county treasurer certifying that taxes, assessments, penalties and interest levied and assessed against the property sought to be exempted have been paid in full to the date upon which the application for exemption is filed, or are such as may be remitted under the proviso in Section 5570-1, General Code.”
In our view the Board of Tax Appeals was without jurisdiction to consider this application for exemption for two reasons: (a) The application was not filed prior to December 31 of the year for which exemption was claimed, and (b) the certificate of the county treasurer discloses that taxes and penalties were not paid in full to the date upon which the application for exemption was filed and there is no evidence showing that the taxes and penalties are such
Page 231
as could be remitted under the proviso in Section 5570-1, General Code.
It follows therefore that the decisions of the Board of Tax Appeals should be and hereby are reversed and the causes are remanded to such board with instruction to dismiss the proceedings for want of jurisdiction.
Decisions reversed.
WEYGANDT, C.J., ZIMMERMAN, WILLIAMS, MATTHIAS and HART, JJ., concur.
TURNER, J., dissenting.
I dissent for the reason that I do not believe Section 5616, General Code, has any application to the instant proceeding.
The instant proceeding is not an appeal from the decision of a county board of revision but is a proceeding under Section 5570-1, General Code, to obtain the consent of the Board of Tax Appeals to the exemption from taxation of certain real estate which is claimed to be exempt under Section 5349, General Code.
The jurisdiction of the Board of Tax Appeals to exercise the authority provided by law relative to consenting to the exemption of property from taxation is conferred by Section 1464-1, General Code.
I am of the opinion that the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals is reasonable and lawful and should be affirmed.