Title: Newman v. Levin

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Newman v. Levin, 116 Ohio St.3d 1205, 2007-Ohio-5507.] 
 
 
NEWMAN, AUD., APPELLANT AND CROSS-APPELLEE, v. LEVIN, TAX COMMR., 
APPELLANT AND CROSS-APPELLEE; CINCINNATI GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY 
ET AL., APPELLEES AND CROSS-APPELLANTS. 
[Cite as Newman v. Levin, 116 Ohio St.3d 1205, 2007-Ohio-5507.] 
Motion to dismiss granted. 
(No. 2007-1054 — Submitted September 11, 2007 — Decided October 23, 2007.) 
APPEAL and CROSS-APPEAL from the Board of Tax Appeals,  
Nos. 2002-M-170, 2002-M-171, and 2002-M-172. 
ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS 
__________________ 
 
{¶ 1} This cause is before the court upon the motions of appellees/cross-
appellants, Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co., Dayton Power and Light Co., and 
Columbus Southern Power Companies, to dismiss the Tax Commissioner’s notice 
of appeal and to dismiss certain claims or assignments of error set forth in the 
notice of appeal filed by the Adams County auditor.  Appellees/cross-appellants 
have also filed a motion seeking oral argument on their motion to dismiss the Tax 
Commissioner’s notice of appeal. 
{¶ 2} The Tax Commissioner originally granted to appellees/cross-
appellants the thermal-efficiency-improvement certificates that form the basis for 
the tax exemptions at issue in this appeal.  The county auditor appealed that 
determination to the Board of Tax Appeals (“BTA”).  The auditor and the Tax 
Commissioner have filed separate notices of appeal from the BTA to this court, 
both of which have been docketed under the present case number.  In particular, 
the Tax Commissioner’s notice of appeal seeks review of the BTA decision to the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
extent the BTA decision affirmed the Tax Commissioner’s issuance of the 
certificates. 
{¶ 3} The Tax Commissioner predicates his standing to appeal on the 
third paragraph of R.C. 5717.04.  While it is true that R.C. 5717.04 creates 
statutory authorization to appeal, none of the persons named by the statute has 
standing to appeal unless that person has been aggrieved by the decision of the 
BTA from which appeal is taken.  See Dayton-Montgomery Cty. Port Auth. v. 
Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Revision, 113 Ohio St.3d 281, 2007-Ohio-1948, 865 
N.E.2d 22, ¶ 33.  We hold that when the Tax Commissioner has issued a 
certificate or determination granting a tax reduction or exemption, he is not 
aggrieved by a decision of the BTA to the extent that that decision affirms the 
grant of the tax reduction or exemption.  It follows, then, that the Tax 
Commissioner lacks standing to pursue the appeal that he has filed in this case. 
{¶ 4} Accordingly, the motion to dismiss the Tax Commissioner’s notice 
of appeal is granted, and that appeal is dismissed.  Appellees/cross-appellants' 
motion for oral argument on the motion to dismiss the Tax Commissioner’s notice 
of appeal is denied as moot. 
{¶ 5} After careful consideration of the arguments of the parties as to 
appellees/cross-appellants' motion to dismiss certain claims or assignments of 
error set forth in the notice of appeal filed by the county auditor, we deny the 
motion.  The denial of the motion does not preclude the parties’ raising similar or 
related issues by brief. 
{¶ 6} The clerk is directed to realign the Tax Commissioner as an 
appellee/cross-appellee in this case. 
{¶ 7} The stay of briefing of this case is hereby lifted, and 
appellant/cross-appellee’s brief is due 40 days from the date of this order. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
January Term, 2007 
3 
__________________ 
 
David C. DiMuzio, Inc., and David C. DiMuzio, for appellant and cross-
appellee Adams County Auditor. 
 
Marc Dann, Attorney General, and Janyce C. Katz, Assistant Attorney 
General, for appellant and cross-appellee Tax Commissioner. 
 
Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, L.L.P., Anthony L. Ehler, Douglas L. 
Rogers, and Jeffrey Allen Miller, for appellees and cross-appellants. 
______________________