[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advanc e sheets, it may be cited as Johnson v. McClain , Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-1664.]

NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to f ormal revision before it is pu blished in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are reques ted to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohi o, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published.

S LIP O PINION N O
. 2021-O HIO -1664
J OHNSON , A PPELLANT , v . M C C LAIN , T AX C OMMR ., A PPELLEE
. [Until this opinion appears in t he Ohio Official Reports advanc e sheets, it

may be cited as Johnson v. McClain , Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-1664.] Taxation—Property tax—Current agricu ltural use valuation—Property owner failed to prove that tax commissioner abused his discretion in adopting land-valuation table—Decision of Board of Tax Appeals affirmed. (No. 2020-0472—Submitted Janua ry 26, 2021—Decided May 18, 2021. )
A PPEAL from the Board of Tax Appeals, No. 2016-814.

__________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} Appellant, William S. Johnson, app eals a decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (“BTA”) affirming the June 22, 2016 journal entry issue d by appellee, Ohio Tax Commissioner Jeffrey McClain. That journal entry adop ted a per-acre valuation table for use by the county auditors in assessing lan d that qualifies for “current agricultural use valua tion” (“CAUV”). The BTA determi ned that JohnsonS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 failed to prove that the tax commissioner abused his discretion in adopting the valuation table. We agree and the refore affirm the BTA’s decis ion.
I. COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS {¶ 2} The journal entry at issue here p rescribes the basis for proper ty-tax valuation of CAUV-qualifying far mland in 23 Ohio counties that conducted either a reappraisal or a valuation update for tax year 2016. The ent ry adopts a 58-page unit-value table that lists soil types along with (1) ratings o f each soil type as to several characteristics, includi ng natural drainage, and (2) pe r-acre values for each soil type based on potential income for crops grown in that soi l. Each county
auditor consults the unit-value table when calculating the valu e of farmland in his or her county and applies the per-acre values from the table to the farmland using soil maps of the farms in the county. Ohio Adm.Code 5703-25-34 (B). {¶ 3} Johnson owns a farm in Clark County, which is one of the counti es subject to the tax commissione r’s June 2016 journal entry. In Adams v. Testa , 152 Ohio St.3d 207, 2017-Ohio-8853, 94 N.E.3d 539, ¶ 33, we held th at a CAUV journal entry is a “final determination” that is appealable to the BTA pursuant to R.C. 5717.02 and that a taxpayer who is “subject to” the entry has standing to appeal it to the BTA. Johnson appealed t he tax commissioner’s journal entry to the BTA, primarily arguing that the unit-value table does not differenti ate certain soil types based on whether they are drained or undrained. {¶ 4} In its decision, the BTA summarized the structure of the CAUV program and determined that because “th[e] appeal concerns the propriety of the commissioner’s actions in adopting the tables, their applicatio n to a particular property (i.e., Mr. Johnson’s farm ) is not before us today.” B TA No. 2016-814, 2020 WL 1274335, *2 (Mar. 6, 2020). The BTA then reviewed the tax commissioner’s decision adopting th e CAUV table to determine wh ether the
commissioner abused his discreti on—that is, whether the decisio n was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Id . at *4. Specifically, it askedJanuary Term, 2021

3 “whether the commissioner abused his discretion by adopting a C AUV table without expressly setting forth a separate rate for somewhat po orly drained, poorly drained, or very poorly drained so ils that lack a rtificial drai nage.” Id

. {¶ 5} For three reasons, the BTA found no abuse of discretion. First , the administrative code calls for valuation based on normal managem ent practices in the area, not on the “ ‘management ability or decisions of an i ndividual owner or operator.’ ” Id . at *4, quoting Ohio Adm.Code 5703-25-33(B). Second, Johnson failed to rebut testimony at the BTA hearing establishing that for purposes of developing the unit-value table, the yields for all soil types may include data from
both drained and undrained soil. Id . Finally, because the typical management of certain soil types includes artificial drainage, even if the co mmissioner did not consider data regarding lack of artificial drainage in making h is determination, Johnson did not show an arbitrary or unconscionable attitude on the commissioner’s part. Id . at *4-5. {¶ 6} Johnson appealed to this court as of right pursuant to R.C. 571 7.04.
II. ANALYSIS A. Agricultural-use valuation {¶ 7} Generally, Ohio taxes real estate by determining, as a first st ep, the property’s fair market value at its highest and best use; such a value is the “true value” as that term is used in R.C. 5713.01(B). “ ‘[T]he value or true value in money of real property’ refers to ‘the amount for which that pr operty would sell on the open market by a willing seller to a willing buyer * * *, i .e., the sales price.’ ” (Brackets and ellipsis added in Terraza 8, L.L.C. ) Terraza 8, L.L.C. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision , 150 Ohio St.3d 527, 2017-Ohio-4415, 83 N.E.3d 916, ¶ 8-9, quoting State ex rel. Park Invest. Co. v. Bd. of Tax Appeals , 175 Ohio St. 410, 412, 195 N.E.2d 908 (1964); see also Rite Aid of Ohio, Inc. v. Washington Cty. Bd. of
Revision , 146 Ohio St.3d 173, 2016-Ohio-371, 54 N.E.3d 1177, ¶ 34. But under Article II, Section 36 of the Ohio Constitution and the statute s implementing thatS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

4 provision, property that qualifie s for CAUV treatment is assess ed not on the basis of its highest and best use, but on the basis of its “current a gricultural use”—a valuation that typically is lowe r than a highest-and-best-use v aluation for the same
land. Johnson v. Clark Cty. Bd. of Revision , 155 Ohio St.3d 264, 2018-Ohio-4390, 120 N.E.3d 823, ¶ 10-12. This tax break is available to owners who prove that their property is “devoted exclusively to agricultural use,” R.C. 571 3.30(A)(1), 5713.31, and 5715.01(A). {¶ 8} The tax commissioner prescribes t he basis for determining CAUV pursuant to administrative ru les promulgated under R.C. 5715.01

. 1 Ohio Adm.Code Chapter 5703-25, Sections 30 through 36, govern the CA UV process and Ohio Adm.Code 5703-25-33(A) p rescribes a potential-income a pproach for developing CAUV tables. The pre scribed approach relies on dete rmining “typical net income before real property and income taxes from agricultu ral products assuming typical management, cropping and land use patterns and yields for a given type of soil.” To ensure uniformity, the commissioner must ann ually “adopt a proposed entry setting forth the necessary modifications and va lues to be used in establishing the current agricultural use value of land in coun ties completing a sexennial reappraisal or [comple ting a triennial update].” Ohi o Adm.Code 5703- 25-31(D). {¶ 9} In preparing the journal entry, the commissioner must consult w ith an “agricultural advisory committee,” id. , that consists of representatives from “farm related organizations and public a gencies having knowledge in t his field,” Ohio Adm.Code 5703-25-32(A). Through the journal entry, the commiss ioner adopts a

1. Ohio’s 2017 budget bill, 2017 Am.Sub.H.B. No. 49, amended R .C. 5715.01 to add specific requirements concerning the CAUV methodology. Those amendments were not in effect in June 2016 when the tax commissioner adopted and Johnson contested th e unit-value table at issue here. Accordingly, we refer in this opinion to the version of R.C. 57 15.01 in effect for tax year 2016 as “former R.C. 5715.01.”January Term, 2021

5 CAUV table listing soil types and the per-acre values for each soil type. Ohio
Adm.Code 5703-25-33. We ha ve explained that process as follows :

The commissioner compiles this table by first calculating the typical net income from agricultu ral products for each soil typ e. * * * Next, the commissioner capitalizes the incomes expected to be derived from each soil type by a rate that he has previously determined. Finally, he lists the unit values per acre so dete rmined
in the table and distributes t he table to the auditors.

Renner v. Tuscarawas Cty. Bd. of Revision , 59 Ohio St.3d 142, 145, 572 N.E.2d 56 (1991). {¶ 10} When the commissioner lists soil types in the unit-value table, he or she relies on “Bulletin 685” for guidance. The bulletin is a 1 980s publication reflecting the input of the Ohio State University’s Cooperative Extension Service, the Ohio State University’s Ohio Agricultural Research and Deve lopment Center,
the Division of Soil and Water C onservation of the Ohio Departm ent of Natural Resources, and the United States Department of Agriculture’s (“ USDA”) Soil Conservation Service (now known as the National Resource Conser vation Service). When the USDA adds soil types and data to its taxonomy of soils , those findings are presented to the tax commissioner’s agricultural advisory c ommittee for
inclusion in the unit-value tables. {¶ 11} Using the CAUV journal entry, a county auditor determines the agricultural-use value of each qualifying property in his or he r county, and those valuations “will be accepted as prima-facie correct valuation f or parcels or tracts of land devoted exclusively to agri cultural use where the parcel a nd tract of land has a ‘true’ or ‘market’ value reflecting a higher and better use t han agricultural [use].” Ohio Adm.Code 5703-25-31(E).S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

6 B. Basis of the controversy {¶ 12} Through four claims of error, Johnson presents a narrow challen ge to the CAUV unit-value table a dopted in the tax commissioner’s June 2016 journal entry. Specifically, he faults the table for not listing separ ate values for drained and undrained Crosby, Kokomo, and Pa tton soils, given that it does list separate values
for drained and undrained Adria n, Carlisle, and Linwood soils. By arguing for a lower unit value for the Crosby, Kokomo, and Patton soil types, which are present but undrained on his farmland, J ohnson seeks to reduce the prim a facie agriculturaluse value of the la nd, which would reduce hi s property-tax liab ility.
C. Ohio Adm.Code 5703- 25-34(E) furnishes no basis for challeng ing the CAUV journal entry {¶ 13} Johnson predicates his first claim of error on Ohio Adm.Code 57 03- 25-34(E), which requires a county auditor, “[i]f a particular s oil type is not included in the ‘current agricultural use value of land table or tables’ prescribed by the tax commissioner for the given year,” to “contact the tax commissio ner to secure the per acre unit value for the soil type.” The commissioner “shal l then compute a use value [for that soil type] * * *.” Id. {¶ 14} Johnson argues that this provision compels the tax commissioner to recognize undrained versions of specified soil types on the uni t-value table. By challenging the BTA’s determin ation that Ohio Adm.Code 5703-25- 34(E) does not apply to his challenge to the C AUV journal entry, Johnson raise s an issue of law
that we review de novo. See Kinnear Rd. Redevelopment, L.L.C. v. Testa , 151 Ohio St.3d 540, 2017-Ohio-8816, 90 N.E.3d 926, ¶ 14. {¶ 15} As a starting point, we note that “unless the [commissioner’s] rule is unreasonable or contrary to law, the Tax Commissioner must appl y it as
formulated.” Kroger Grocery & Baking Co. v. Glander , 149 Ohio St. 120, 126, 77 N.E.2d 921 (1948), overruled on other grounds , Fichtel & Sachs Industries, Inc. v.
Wilkins , 108 Ohio St.3d 106, 2006-Ohio-246, 841 N.E.2d 284. We agree with theJanuary Term, 2021

7 BTA’s conclusion that Ohio Ad m.Code 5703-25-34(E) does not supp ort Johnson’s
claim of error. {¶ 16} By their own terms, the provisions of Ohio Adm.Code 5703-25-34 apply to a county auditor’s use of the unit-value table, not to the commissioner’s adoption of the table. Division (A) of the rule addresses the auditor’s determination as to whether property qualifies for CAUV treatment, and divisi ons (B), (C), and (D) prescribe the initial steps for appraising CAUV property us ing the unit-value table. County soil-survey maps are to be used to develop soil maps for each farm
to be assessed. Ohio Adm.Code 5703-25-34(B). And as the BTA c orrectly recognized below, the division of labor between the tax commiss ioner and the
auditor reflects “two distinct a spects” of “the process by whic h the value of land qualifying for CAUV is estab lished.” BTA No. 2016-814, 2020 WL 1274335, at *2. Generally, the tax commissioner’s duty is to “direct and s upervise the assessment for taxation of all real property” in the state, for mer R.C. 5715.01(A), whereas a county auditor’s duty is to serve as the “assessor of all the real estate in the auditor’s county for pur poses of taxation,” R.C. 5713.01(A)

. {¶ 17} Ohio Adm.Code 5703-25-34(E) c learly applies to the auditor ’s duties in making an assessment: it requires the auditor to cont act the commissioner when “a particular soil type is not included” in the unit-value table, and then the commissioner may take further action. Accordingly, Ohio Adm.Co de 5703-25- 34(E) addresses a county audito r’s duties when assessing CAUV p roperty—not the
duties of the tax commissioner—a nd the auditor’s determinations may be reviewed by the county’s board of revision if the affected taxpayer cont ests the assessment by filing a complaint under R.C. 5715.19(A). 2

2. In his merit brief, Johnson details the factual background of his efforts to obtain relief through the county auditor. Those matters lie outside the record befor e us and, as the BTA correctly observed, the county auditor’s assessment of the soil on Johnso n’s farmland lies beyond the scope of review in this case. Previously, Johnson raised arguments r elating to soil drainage in connectionS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

8 {¶ 18} We affirm the BTA’s conclusion that Ohio Adm.Code 5703-25- 34(E) does not apply in the contex t of Johnson’s claim against the tax
commissioner.

D. The BTA correctly determined that the tax commissioner did not abuse
his discretion {¶ 19} In his second, third, and fourth claims of error, Johnson renew s his argument, which was rejected by the BTA, that the tax commissio ner abused his discretion by not adopting separate per-acre values for undrain ed versions of Crosby, Kokomo, and Patton soils. The BTA applied the abuse-of -discretion standard based on our holding in Adams that the rules vest discretionary authority in the tax commissioner in adopting CAUV tables and that such a ctions are not merely ministerial. BTA No. 2016-814, 2020 WL 1274335, at *3-4 , citing Adams , 152 Ohio St.3d 207, 2017-Ohio-8853, 94 N.E.3d 539, at ¶ 28. In deed, in analogous circumstances we have acknowledg ed the tax commissioner’s “high degree of official judgment or discretion” in determining the manner in w hich he discharges his assigned duties. Ashland Cty. Commrs. v. Ohio Dept. of Taxation , 63 Ohio St.3d 648, 656, 590 N.E.2d 730 (1992); see also State ex rel. Delaware Joint Vocational School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Testa , 149 Ohio St.3d 634, 2017-Ohio-796, 76 N.E.3d 1190, ¶ 13. And when the BTA reviews a determination of the tax
commissioner that involves the commissioner’s exercise of a dis cretionary power conferred by statute, the BTA must apply the abuse-of-discretio n standard. See J.M. Smucker, L.L.C. v. Levin , 113 Ohio St.3d 337, 2007-Ohio-2073, 865 N.E.2d 866, ¶ 16. {¶ 20} Two well-settled principles apply to our review in this context . First, “it is not the role of this court to substitute its judgment fo r that” of the commissioner, absent a finding of “unreasonableness, arbitrarin ess, or

with the tax-year-2010 assessment of his farmland. See Johnson v. Clark Cty. Bd. of Revision , 2d Dist. Clark No. 2013 CA 32, 2014-Ohio-329.January Term, 2021

9 unconscionability.” Valentine v. Conrad , 110 Ohio St.3d 42, 2006-Ohio-3561, 850 N.E.2d 683, ¶ 9; see also Renacci v. Testa , 148 Ohio St.3d 470, 2016-Ohio-3394, 71 N.E.3d 962, ¶ 32 (“Abuse of discretion connotes an unreasona ble, arbitrary, or unconscionable attitude”). Sec ond, the tax commissioner’s dete rminations when adopting a unit-value table are “presumed, in the absence of pr oof to the contrary, to be valid and to have been done in good faith and in the exer cise of sound judgment.” Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Evatt , 143 Ohio St. 71, 54 N.E.2d 132 (1944), paragraph seven of the syllabus. {¶ 21} At the hearing before the BTA, the tax commissioner’s assistant administrator in charge of the CAUV program, Gloria Gardner, te stified that the 2016 unit-value table generally f ollows the USDA’s taxonomy of soils and that the taxonomy does not include drained and undrained Crosby, Kokomo, and Patton soils as separate soil types. {¶ 22} Johnson contends that the tax co mmissioner abused his discretio n by selectively departing from the USDA’s taxonomy of soils. He ba ses that assertion
on his cross-examination of Gardn er, in which she conceded that Bulletin 685, which provides yield data for par ticular soils used to develop the unit-value tables, does not have separate listings f or drained and undrained Adria n, Carlisle, and Linwood soils—and yet the 2016 unit-value table does distinguis h between drained
and undrained versions of those soils. {¶ 23} We reject Johnson’s argument for two reasons. First, the tax commissioner’s admitted departure from the bulletin does not prove that the commissioner departed from the USDA’s soil taxonomy . That is so because Gardner’s testimony indicates that the soil types in the bullet in have been updated and that updating might account for any differential treatment of soil types— including drained and undrained variants—in the current unit-va lue table. Second, even if the CAUV journal entry did depart from the USDA’s soil taxonomy, we must presume that the commissioner’s decision to do so reflects his exercise ofS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

10 sound judgment following his cons ultation with the agricultural advisory
committee. {¶ 24} Johnson further argues that the tax commissioner “excluded data for land lacking artificial drainage ” with respect to Crosby, Kokom o, and Patton soil types. Johnson bases this argument on the drainage characteriz ations for those soil types set forth in the unit-valu e table and the explanation of drainage set forth in Bulletin 685. In the unit-value table, Crosby soil in its natu ral state is rated “somewhat poorly drained,” Kokomo soil in its natural state is rated “very poorly drained,” and Patton soil in its natural state is rated “poorly drained.” The bulletin explains that with respect to soil types with “poorly drained” or “very poorly drained” ratings, “most crops cannot be grown” without artifici al drainage. Additionally, the bu lletin states that regarding “somewhat poor ly drained” soils, “[w]etness markedly restricts the growth of crops unless artifi cial drainage is provided.” {¶ 25} Johnson’s point may be illustrated by comparing the table’s treatment of two soil types: A drian and Kokomo. In the 2016 un it-value table, Adrian soil and Kokomo soil are both rated “very poorly drained ,” but only Adrian soil has separate unit-value entries based on drainage: $1,160 per acre for drained, and the minimum agricultural value of $350 per acre for undrain ed. By contrast, Kokomo soil has values of $3,970 and $3,690 per acre and the ta ble does not distinguish between drained a nd undrained variants of the soil. Johnson maintains that the commissioner should recognize a value for undrained Ko komo soil—and he makes the same argument regarding two other soil types on hi s farmland— Crosby soil and Patton soil. {¶ 26} Although those soil types in their natural states are rated as being somewhat poorly drained, poorly drained, or very poorly drained , and although relatively high per-acre values are assigned to those soil type s through the 2016 CAUV journal entry, Gardner tes tified that the data regarding c rop yields from theJanuary Term, 2021

11 soil types may have included yi elds from both drained and undra ined soil types. The BTA found that this testimony was unrebutted, BTA No. 2016- 814, 2020 WL 1274335, at *4, and we affirm the BT A’s determination that the inferences Johnson draws from the differing drainage ratings, though perhaps plaus ible, do not rebut Gardner’s testimony. 3 {¶ 27} Furthermore, we question whethe r proof that the tax commissione r did not consider data regarding the soils from farmland lacking artificial drainage would establish an abuse of discretion. At the hearing before the BTA, Johnson admitted that the installation of artificial drainage on farmla nd is the norm— according to him, “probably 95 percent of the farms” in his cou nty that have the Patton soil type have artificial drainage. Because Ohio Adm.Co de 5703-25-33(A) calls for the commissioner to base the CAUV journal entry on “t ypical net income
* * * assuming typical management , cropping and land use patterns and yields for a given type of soil” (emphasis added), the commissioner is jus tified in according little weight to atypical practi ces when preparing the journal entry. {¶ 28} Finally, Johnson argues more broadly that by listing some soil types with drained and undrained varian ts, while listing other soil t ypes without such variants, the tax commissioner abused his discretion. Johnson contends that the difference between artificially drained and undrained soil cann ot be viewed as a question of differing management practices, and separate entrie s in the unit-value table are required for them because installing drainage tile in volves additional capital investment.

3. At the hearing before the BTA, Johnson stated that he had s ubpoenaed a USDA soil specialist, but the specialist did not attend the hearing. According to Jo hnson, the specialist would have testified that “all of the somewhat poorly drained, poorly drai ned, and very poorly drained [soils] contained in the OSU bulletin report are for drained soils.” J ohnson has not set forth as error any alleged nonenforcement of his subpoena, and we do not consider the proffered evidence here. See E. Liverpool v. Columbiana Cty. Budget Comm ., 116 Ohio St.3d 1201, 2007-Ohio-5505, 876 N.E.2d 575, ¶ 9 (argument “never pressed” in the appellant’s briefs de emed abandoned).S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

12 {¶ 29} We reject this argument. To repeat: the differential treatment of soil types reflects the exercise of judgment by the commissioner, wh ich we presume to be sound. The possibility that the tax commissioner may have c onsidered the investment required for artificia l drainage for some soil types , but not for others, does not by itself prove that the commissioner abused his discr etion. {¶ 30} The record does not disclose the rationale for every considerat ion underlying the unit-value table, but it was not the commissione r’s burden to
demonstrate the reasonableness of the CAUV journal entry—it was Johnson’s burden to show an arbitrary or unconscionable attitude on the p art of the
commissioner. He has not done so.
III. CONCLUSION {¶ 31} For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the BTA.
Decision affirmed.
O’C ONNOR , C.J., and K ENNEDY , F ISCHER , D E W INE , D ONNELLY , S TEWART , and B RUNNER , JJ., concur.

_________________ William S. Johnson, pro se. Dave Yost, Attorney General, and Raina Nahra Boulos and Kimber ly Allison, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.

_________________