Court Opinion

ID: 6778797
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-21 00:53:23.716836+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:02:50.331144
License: Public Domain

Cook, J.,
concurring. I differ from the majority in that I would not review the decision of the BTA regarding the later-offered evidence because the remand by this court did not encompass the authority to take additional proof.
Our remand in this case was limited to determining whether United Telephone qualified for a particular tax deduction. The BTA had no authority to enlarge or vary our mandate. Nolan v. Nolan (1984), 11 Ohio St.3d 1, 4, 11 OBR 1, 3, 462 N.E.2d 410, 413. Rather, the BTA was required to proceed from the point at which the error occurred. State ex rel. Stevenson v. Murray (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d 112, 113, 23 O.O.3d 160, 431 N.E.2d 324, 325. Here, the error occurred after presentation of all the evidence when the BTA mistakenly concluded that the requested deduction was no longer available. On remand, then, the BTA was limited to applying the correct law to the evidence already presented.
Technically, our remand was unnecessary because, in its initial decision, the BTA reviewed the quality of the first evidence presented and found it lacking. Even though United Telephone demonstrated that it qualified for the deduction, it failed to meet its burden to prove the amount.
The majority’s ultimate conclusion is correct in light of the BTA’s initial finding that United Telephone failed to present adequate proof in the first hearing. I would stop short of evaluating the evidence presented at the second hearing because doing so sanctions the procedural mistake.
Moyer, C. J., concurs in the foregoing concurring opinion.