Case Title: A. Schulman, Inc. v. Wilkins

Citation: 2006-Ohio-6677

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2006-12-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as A. Schulman, Inc. v. Wilkins, 112 Ohio St.3d 1208, 2006-Ohio-6677.] 
 
 
 
A. SCHULMAN, INC., APPELLANT AND CROSS-APPELLEE, v. WILKINS, TAX 
COMMR., APPELLEE AND CROSS-APPELLANT. 
[Cite as A. Schulman, Inc. v. Wilkins, 112 Ohio St.3d 1208, 2006-Ohio-6677.] 
Motion to dismiss granted. 
(No. 2006-1944 — Submitted December 5, 2006 — Decided  
December 19, 2006.) 
APPEAL and CROSS-APPEAL from the Board of Tax Appeals, No. 2004-B-370. 
ON MOTION TO DISMISS 
__________________ 
{¶ 1} In this appeal and cross-appeal from a Board of Tax Appeals 
(“BTA”) decision, appellee and cross-appellant Tax Commissioner has filed a 
motion to dismiss appellant A. Schulman, Inc.’s appeal.  That motion rests on 
appellant’s failure to file the notice of appeal with the BTA itself within the 30-
day period for perfecting an appeal.  Appellant’s notice of appeal was timely filed 
with this court, but a copy of that notice was not filed with the BTA itself until 41 
days after the BTA issued its decision. 
{¶ 2} The relevant statutory provision states that an appeal from a BTA 
decision “shall be taken within thirty days” after the BTA journalizes its decision, 
and any such appeal is perfected “by the filing by appellant of a notice of appeal 
with the court to which the appeal is taken and the board.”  R.C. 5717.04.  As this 
court has said, that provision “requires that a copy of the notice of appeal filed 
with this court also be filed with the BTA.”  Mid-States Terminal, Inc. v. Lucas 
Cty. Bd. of Revision (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 79, 82, 666 N.E.2d 1077.  And “the 
appellant has thirty days to accomplish both filings; if he fails to do either, a 
mandatory jurisdictional requirement is omitted.”  Ahrns v. Bd. of Tax Appeals 
(1970), 22 Ohio App.2d 179, 181, 51 O.O.2d 350, 259 N.E.2d 518. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶ 3} This court’s Rules of Practice reflect the statute and the cases that 
have applied it:  “A notice of appeal from the Board of Tax Appeals shall be filed 
with the Supreme Court and the Board within 30 days from the date of the entry 
of the decision of the Board.”  (Emphasis added.)  S.Ct.Prac.R. II(3)(A)(1). 
{¶ 4} Although appellant filed its notice of appeal with this court 27 days 
after the BTA issued its decision, appellant waited until 41 days after the BTA’s 
decision to file the notice of appeal with the BTA itself.  That latter filing fell well 
outside the 30-day requirement, and despite appellant’s request that the statute be 
given a liberal construction, longstanding precedents from this and other Ohio 
courts indicate that the untimely filing deprives the court of jurisdiction to hear 
appellant’s appeal.  See Kenney v. Evatt (1945), 144 Ohio St. 369, 29 O.O. 541, 
59 N.E.2d 47 (dismissing an appeal because although a notice of appeal was 
timely filed with the court, that notice was not filed with the BTA within 30 days 
after the BTA issued its decision); Ahrns, 22 Ohio App.2d at 181, 51 O.O.2d 350, 
259 N.E.2d 518 (“The notice [of appeal] must be filed within the 30-day period 
and in two places: the court to which appeal is taken and with the board [of tax 
appeals]”); id. (“the filing of notice with the board * * * within the time specified 
is * * * mandatory”). 
{¶ 5} We therefore grant the Tax Commissioner’s motion to dismiss the 
appeal.  The Tax Commissioner’s timely cross-appeal remains pending, however, 
and the Tax Commissioner shall proceed as the appellant in this case and shall file 
a merit brief pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. VI(2) within 40 days of the date of this 
entry.  A. Schulman, Inc. shall proceed as the appellee, and the parties shall 
otherwise proceed to brief this case in accordance with S.Ct.Prac.R. VI. 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL 
and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
PFEIFER, J., dissents. 
__________________ 
January Term, 2006 
3 
PFEIFER, J., dissenting. 
{¶ 6} I continue to believe that a dual filing requirement such as that 
contained in R.C. 5717.04 should not be part of our rules.  See Olympic Steel, Inc. 
v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 110 Ohio St.3d 1242, 2006-Ohio-4091, 852 
N.E.2d 178, ¶ 4-5 (Pfeifer, J., dissenting).  I believe this case should be heard on 
the merits.  I dissent and would deny the motion to dismiss the appeal. 
__________________ 
 
Leonard A. Carlson, for appellant and cross-appellee. 
 
Jim Petro, Attorney General, and Barton A. Hubbard and Janyce C. Katz, 
Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee and cross-appellant. 
______________________