Foundry Equipment Sales Record Ohio - PDF

Document Sample
Foundry Equipment Sales Record Ohio - PDF Powered By Docstoc
					Kathryn A. Belfance, Trustee,   )
Successor in Interest to        )
Copperweld Steel Company,       )
                                )      CASE NOS. 95-M-898
                Appellant,      )                95-M-899
          vs.                   )     (REAL PROPERTY TAX)
Trumbull County Board           )
of Revision, the                )     DECISION AND ORDER
Trumbull County Auditor,        )
LaBrae Local Schools Board      )
of Education and Champion       )
Local Schools Board of          )
Education,      )
                Appellees.      )


          For the Appellant-        Robert Stefancin
                                    Brouse & McDowell
                                    500 First National Tower
                                    Akron, Ohio 44308

          For the County-           Dennis Watkins
          Appellees                 Trumbull County Prosecuting
                                    By: Paul Heltzel
                                    Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
                                    160 High Street Northwest
                                    Warren, Ohio 44882

          For the LaBrae-           Ron Joseph, Superintendent
          Local School              4651 West Market Street
          District                  Leavittsburg, Ohio 44430

          For the Champion-         Pamela Hood, Superintendent
          Local School              5759 Mahoning Avenue NW
          District                  Warren, Ohio 44483

                Entered June 30, 1997

Mr. Johnson, Ms. Jackson and Mr. Manoranjan concur.

          This cause and matter comes on to be considered by the

Board of Tax Appeals upon two notices of appeal filed under date of
August 29, 1995, from decisions, dated August 2, 1995, of the

Trumbull County Board of Revision ("BOR"), appellee herein.

          The subject property is located in the Champion and

Warren Township taxing districts of Trumbull County, Ohio, and

further identified as Parcel Nos. 41-621900 and 46-373100.

          The Trumbull County Auditor found the true and taxable

values of the subject property for tax year 1994 to be as follows:

Parcel No. 41-621900
342.86 acres

                          True Value           Taxable Value

       Land               $ 1,266,900            $ 443,420
       Buildings          $ 2,305,200            $ 806,820
       Total              $ 3,572,100            $1,250,240

Parcel No. 46-373100
148.63 Acres

       Land               $   690,500            $ 241,680
       Buildings          $ 5,981,000            $2,093,350
       Total              $ 6,671,500            $2,335,030

          Upon consideration of the complaints filed, the Trumbull

County BOR determined that there should be no change in value.

          The contentions of value for tax year 1994, presented by

way of notices of appeal are as follows:

Parcel No. 41-621900
342.86 acres
                                   True Value               Taxable Value

          Land                     $   464,152                  $    162,453
          Buildings                $   844,546                  $    295,592
          Total                    $ 1,308,698                  $    458,045

Parcel No. 46-373100
148.63 Acres

          Land                     $   252,975                  $     88,542
          Buildings                $ 2,191,212                  $    766,924
          Total                    $ 2,444,187                  $    855,466

             The    subject      property   is   the   former   Copperweld     Steel

("Copperweld")      production      facility.      The   site   is   comprised   of

491.49 acres and improved with a steel mill facility consisting of

31 one- and two-story buildings containing approximately 2,037,116

square feet.       The buildings were constructed between 1920 and 1970.

Most are steel-framed, brick, block, metal panel and/or fiberglass

buildings, some with dirt floors, others with floors reinforced to

sustain   the      weight   of    foundry   equipment.      Other     improvements

include landscaping, fencing and paving.

             As a result of the age of the buildings and the changes

which have taken place in the steel industry, the plant has some

functional    obsolescence.          However,    steel   production     has    never

ceased at the plant despite the financial difficulties facing the

owner of the facility as will be discussed, infra.                   The appraiser

who testified at hearing indicated that the highest and best use of

the property is continued use as a steel mill and that opinion is

well supported by the record.

             The    original      complaint         was    filed    with     the       BOR   by

Copperweld on March 31, 1995.                   That corporation had filed for

bankruptcy protection on November 22, 1993 and had been operating

as a "debtor in possession" pursuant to federal bankruptcy law

since that time.          Countercomplaints were filed by both school

boards in whose districts the plant is located.

             On    August      25,   1995,      the       debtor   filed     a     "Plan      of

Reorganization" which was formally modified in September of that

year.    The plan, as modified and approved, called for the sale or

liquidation of substantially all of the corporation's property,

distribution of the funds received into a "Liquidation Trust", and

the     dissolution      and     termination          of     Copperweld's          corporate

existence.    (Appellant's Exh. 17A)

             As of August 25, 1995, the debtor had entered into a

contract for the sale of substantially all of its assets, including

the parcels here under consideration, to Hamlin Holdings, Inc.

("Hamlin")         The   sale    was     consummated         on    October       11,     1995;

adjustments to the purchase price were made as late as January 1,


             The    appeal      before       this   Board     is   prosecuted          by    the

Trustee of the Liquidation Trust, the entity obligated to pursue

the claims of the debtor corporation for eventual distribution by

order of the bankruptcy court.                 The matter was submitted to the

Board of Tax Appeals pursuant to R.C. 5717.01 upon the notices of

appeal, the statutory transcript certified by the Trumbull County

BOR, the testimony and other evidence adduced at the hearing before

this Board and the briefs of the parties.

             At the hearing before this Board, appellant presented

the testimony of Mr. Scott King, CPA, JD.                Mr. King, an employee of

Price Waterhouse LLP, works with financially distressed companies.

Mr. King is not an appraiser and did not prepare an appraisal of

the subject property.       Mr. King did participate in the negotiation

and sale of Copperweld's assets as a consultant to the unsecured

creditors'    committee     in   the       liquidation   proceedings.         He     also

serves as an advisor to the Liquidation Trustee.                            Mr. King's

testimony at hearing provided a history of the worsening financial

condition of the company, an explanation of the contract for the

sale of the steel facility and some justification for the purchase

price allocation entered at closing.

             During   the    pendency        of   the    bankruptcy     proceedings,

Copperweld's    management       team        actively    pursued      the     sale     of

substantially all of the company's assets.               Hamlin was the eventual

successful purchaser.        It was Mr. King's testimony that the final

sales price received for the working steel plant                was $36,619,000 1.

This figure included cash paid Hamlin of $8,640,000, a worker's

compensation "adjustment" of $3,000,000, promissory notes executed

by Hamlin and payable to the Liquidation Trustee in the amount of

     The record includes other evidence of the amount paid by
Hamlin for the assets purchased which, at first glance, appears to
contradict Mr. King's testimony.      During the BOR hearing, a
representative of the debtor disclosed that the sales price reached
was $59,700,000. (S.T. Exh. 3, 10) The appellant also submitted a
letter to this Board indicating that Copperweld's assets were sold,
as of October 11, 1995, for $73,000,000.      (S.T. Exh. 9).    Our
further review indicates that the greater reported sales prices
include an amount for accounts receivable which were retained by
the debtor's estate and collected by the Liquidation Trustee.
(Appellant's Exh. 16, p. 25)

$9,780,000 and an agreement to assume $15,199,000 of Copperweld's

previously acquired liabilities.

              Mr. King then described the allocation entered int o at

the closing.        At that time, the assets were allocated in the

following manner:

              Inventory                        $16,420,000
              Real Property                    $   500,000
              All Other
              Acquired Assets                  $16,400,000
              Total                            $33,320,0002

              It was Mr. King's position that the allocations to both

inventory     and   all   other    acquired           assets   were   defensible    by

reference to other expert opinions received by company management

when contemplating the courses of action open in light of its

worsening financial condition.               As its financial condition became

critical,     Copperweld's      largest       shareholders      refused   to   infuse

additional resources and attempted to sell their interests but

could find no willing purchaser.                Without the capital infusions,

the   board    of   directors     and       current    management     concluded    that

bankruptcy was the only course of action available.                    At that time,

company management requested Ernst & Young, its accountant, to

prepare a "liquidation analysis".               Such an analysis was necessary

to determine whether the company would be required to liquidate its

assets or would be able to reorganize and continue operations.

Based upon many factors, including management's opinion that a

     The $33,320,000 sale price identified at closing was modified
by post-sale considerations.     The additional funds paid were
allocated to inventory. (Appellant's Exh. 19, Attachment III)

higher      return      for      creditors         could      be     garnered         through

reorganization        rather    than     through         liquidation,       the    board   of

directors sought bankruptcy relief through reorganization.

              Ernst     &    Young's     liquidation         analysis       presented      the

accounting     firm's       opinion    as    to    the    liquidation        value    of   the

company's assets.           That analysis predicted that property, plant and

equipment, then carried on the corporation's books for a net value

of    $52,604,000      would     bring       $10,000,000       if     the     company      was


              Mr. King's focus, however, was not on the liquidation

value of the property, plant and equipment, but on the liquidation

value of the inventory and other assets.                           It was the witness'

position that the liquidation analysis prepared prior to the filing

of    the   bankruptcy       substantiated        the    purchase     price       allocations

agreed to at closing.            As indicated above, the parties allocated

$16,420,000 to inventory.             The liquidation analysis theorized that

the same assets would garner $20,079,000 upon liquidation if they

were sold for 50 per cent of their book value.

              Mr. King turned to another exhibit to further justify

the allocations made at closing.                  At the hearing before the BOR,

the    property   owner       presented      an    appraisal        report    prepared     by

American Appraisal Associates, Inc. which valued, on a liquidation

basis and as of October 31, 1991, all of the real estate, machinery

and equipment, mobile equipment and office furniture and equipment

owned by Copperweld as of that date.                       Mr. King referred to the

"Summary of Fair Market Value" (last page of S.T. Exh. B) to

support the allocation of $16,400,000 to the other acquired assets

made at closing.       Along with the other assets purchased, which were

valued by the American Appraisal Associates at over $16,000,000,

Hamlin purchased a "12 inch mill".                    That mill, originally leased by

Copperweld, was not considered property owned by the corporation as

of the date the liquidation analysis was prepared.

             It was Mr. King's testimony that the "12-inch" mill,

built in 1990 at a cost of $26,000,000 3 was the "crown jewel" of the

Hamlin purchase.       The mill made it possible for Copperweld, or any

successor,    to     utilize    the    latest          steel    making        technology     and

capture a significant portion of the steel requirements of Japanese

manufacturers in America.             As part of the bankruptcy proceedings,

it was determined that the mill was part of the bankruptcy estate

and transferable through sale.

             When    the   value      of       the    mill   was   added       to    the   other

tangible assets transferred, it was Mr. King's testimony that the

$16,000,000 allocated at closing actually undervalued the assets

transferred.        It was Mr. King's further testimony that, when the

value of the other assets transferred at closing was considered,

the allocation of $500,000 to real property was the most that could

be attributed to that asset. (H.R. p. 40)

             Appellees     presented            the    testimony        of    Mr.    Ellis    J.

Yelton.     Mr. Yelton is a real estate appraiser and manager with

Integrity     Appraisal     Service,           a     mass    appraisal        company      under

contract     with    Trumbull      County.             Mr.     Yelton        has    significant

     At the BOR hearing, the debtor's re presentative indicated the
net book value of the "12-inch" mill was $17,000,000. (S.T. Exh.
3, 10)

experience valuing steel facilities, having appraised steel mills

in Kansas City, Lorain, Ohio, Middleton, Ohio and in Mahoning

County, Ohio.      Mr. Yelton valued the subject as of tax lien date

and concluded to a value of $10,030,000.

            Mr.    Yelton     initially   discounted     the    cost   method   of

valuing the property as well as the income method, given the age of

the property's improvements and the fact that steel mills are

rarely leased.       Mr. Yelton testified that considering the subject

under the sales comparison method would produce the best indication

of value.

            In separately valuing the land as if vacant, Mr. Yelton

concluded   that     the    steel   facility   was    underutilizing    its   land

acreage.    Because of that underutilization, the appraiser opined

that a considerable amount of land was appropriately valued as

vacant land.      Valuing this land separately, Mr. Yelton concluded to

a land value of $1,175,000 for the primary mill site (235 acres at

$5,000 per acre), $443,000 for the excess land (221.49 acres at

$2,000 per acre), and $420,000 for the Mahoning Avenue site (35

acres which Mr. Yelton believed to be quite valuable because of

expressway exposure and therefore properly valued at $12,000 per

acre), for a total land valuation of $2,038,000.

            In estimating value under the market sales approach, Mr.

Yelton reviewed the general steel-making vicinity and found five

sales he believed to be comparable to the subject.                     Sale dates

ranged from January, 1982 (Comparable No. 1) through February, 1989

(Comparable    No.    5).      Building   sizes      range   from   approximately

150,000 square feet (Comparable No. 5) to 1,050,0000 square feet

(Comparables No. 3 and 4).

           After        adjustments,    generally   for    size    but    to     some

comparables for age, Mr. Yelton testified that his comparables fell

into a price range of $3.59 to $4.90 per square foot.               Placing some

weight on Comparable No. 5, the sale by Copperweld of an 8.59 acre

plat improved with a 148,944 square foot building for $1,000,000,

but placing the greatest weight upon the sales of a building

complex of over 1,000,000 square feet, Mr. Yelton concluded to a

value of $4.50 per square foot, or $9,167,000, to which he added

his   excess     land    value    of    $863,000,   for    a    total    value    of


           When a party contests the value of real property, there

exists no presumption that the values found by a board of revision

are correct, merely a presumption that the board of revision has

acted in a lawful manner.          Cleveland Bd. of Edn. v. Cuyahoga Cty.

Bd. of Revision (1994), 68 Ohio St. 3d 336;               Springfield Local Bd.

of Edn. v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Revision (1994), 68 Ohio St. 3d 493.

Nevertheless, the appellant has the burden of presenting evidence

in support of the value it has presented, then the other parties to

an appeal have the burden of presenting evidence which rebuts that

of the appellant.        Id.; Mentor Exempted Village Bd. of Edn. v. Lake

Cty. Bd. of Revision (1988), 37 Ohio St. 3d 318, 319.

           The     Ohio     Constitution      provides    the   authority      which

empowers   the    state    to    tax   real   property    within   its    borders.

Article XII, Section 2 provides in pertinent part:

                "Land and improvements thereon shall be
           taxed by uniform rule according to value, ***

           Upon consideration of the above, the General Assembly

enacted R.C. 5713.01, which provides:

                "The auditor shall assess all the real
           estate situated in the county *** at its true
           value in money ***."

           In interpreting the meaning of " true value" as set forth

above, the Supreme Court has determined that the best evidence of a

property's fair market value or "true value in money" for tax

purposes is that amount for which the property would sell on the

open   market   between   willing    parties.       State,   ex    rel.   Park

Investment Co. v. Bd. of Tax Appeals (1964), 175 Ohio St. 41; In re

Estate of Sears (1961), 172 Ohio St. 443.

           Further, R.C. 5713.03 requires that if any property

           " *** has been the subject of an arm's length
           sale between a willing seller and a willing
           buyer within a reasonable length of time,
           either before or after the tax lien date , the
           auditor shall consider the sale price of such
           *** parcel to be the true value for taxation
           purposes. ***"

                                                (Emphasis added)

         Complementing the above quoted statute is R.C. 5713.04,

which provides:

           "Each separate parcel of real property shall
           be valued at its taxable value *** . The price
           for which such real property would sell at
           auction or forced sale shall not be taken as
           the criterion of its value."

                                                   (Emphasis added)

            Thus, there is a rebuttable presumption that a sale

price reflects the true value of property.                Cincinnati Bd. of Edn

v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision               (1997), 78 Ohio St. 3d 325.

However, if evidence is introduced which indicates that the sale

price is not reflective of true value, then a review of independent

appraisals based upon factors other than sale price is appropriate.

Id.; Ratner v. Stark Cty. Bd. of Revision (1986), 23 Ohio St. 3d


            If   evidence   exists       which    calls    into   question    the

validity of a sale, the party placing reliance thereon to support

its contention of value must show that the sale was made at arm's

length.     Tanson Holdings, Inc.         v.     Darke Cty. Bd. of Revision

(1996), 74 Ohio St. 3d 687;         Bedford Bd. of Edn. v. Cuyahoga Cty.

Bd. of Revision et al (Jan. 3, 1997), 95-T-275, 276, unreported.

            In Walters v. Knox Cty. Bd. of Revision (1989), 47 Ohio

St. 3d 23, the Ohio Supreme Court identified the elements of an

arm's length sale.     Therein, the Court concluded:

            " *** an arm's length sale is characterized by
            these elements: it is voluntary, i.e. without
            compulsion or duress;     it generally takes
            place in an open market; and the parties act
            in their own self-interest."

          In Mills v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Revision (Apr. 29, 1994),

B.T.A.    92-Z-553,   unreported,    this      Board   further    clarified   the

characteristics of an arm's length sale:

            "An arm's length sale is one with bidding and
            negotiation on the open market. It requires a

             ready, willing and able buyer and a ready,
             willing and able seller, neither party being
             coerced   or  obligated  to   buy   or sell.
             Generally, such a sale involves independent
             parties who are not related, and payment in
             cash or by conventional financing."

             Appellant, by way of brief, argues that the sale from

Copperweld to Hamlin meets the qualifications of an arm's length

sale.   While not specifically addressing the challenge of R.C.

5713.04, appellant argues that by selling its assets through a

bankruptcy    reorganization   rather   than   liquidating   the   company

"piecemeal" outside of bankruptcy, or shutting the steel mill down

until a suitable buyer could be attracted, Copperweld acted in its

own best interest.

             Closely related to this argument is appellant's claim

that the sale was not a "distress" sale because the property was

exposed to the market both before and after the bankruptcy filing

and the eventual successful purchaser was not the only interested

purchaser, but the best available.         Finally, it is appellant's

belief that the purchase price received by the Liquidation Trustee

was the highest amount which could have been garnered for the

assets sold.    However, this Board finds, under the facts presented

herein, that Copperweld's impaired financial condition necessitated

the sale of its real property.

             Compelling business circumstances may be sufficient to

establish that a recent sale of property is neither arm's length in

nature nor representative of true value.          Lakeside Ave. L.P. v.

Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (1996), 75 Ohio St. 3d 540.               In

Lakeside, the "compulsion" was a non-negotiable purchase price for

a piece of property without which a business would possibly have

been forced into bankruptcy.

           In the present matter, the Liquidation Trustee argues

that Copperweld is a willing "seller".              However, the true "seller"

of the business is the bankrupt estate.                Copperweld is merely a

"debtor in possession".        Thus, this matter is much like               Walhonding

Hills Campground v. Coshocton Cty. Bd. of Revision (Aug. 6, 1993),

B.T.A. Case No. 92-A-903, unreported, wherein this Board concluded

that sales through a bankruptcy may reflect factors other than the

actual   value    of   the   property     sold.     See,    also,     LTV    Steel   v.

Strongsville Bd. of Education, et al. (Nov. 23, 1990), B.T.A. Case

No. 89-J-323 through 327, 374 through 383, unreported.

           Not only do we question the efficacy of a sale directly

from a bankrupt estate as indication of fair market value, we note

that appellant relies upon an allocation of the sale price without

any independent appraisal verification.             This Board is not required

to accept an allocation of a lump sum purchase price paid for a

group of assets.       Elsag-Bailey, Inc. v. Lake Cty. Bd. of Revision

(1996), 74 Ohio St. 3d 647;          Consol. Aluminum Corp. v. Monroe Cty.

Bd. of Revision (1981), 66 Ohio St. 2d 410.                 Instead, this Board

must   consider    whether    that   allocation      results     in    a    distorted

valuation for the real property.                  Conalco   v.   Bd. of Revision

(1977), 50 Ohio 2d 120.

           While appellant did not present appraisal testimony at

the evidentiary hearing, the debtor did submit an appraisal before

the BOR, which, presuming an "orderly liquidation" of the tangible

assets, concluded that the value of the real property, as of

October 31, 1991, was $3,115,000. (S.T. Exh. B).                        That appraisal

report was updated to January 1, 1994 and filed with this Board

October 12, 1995.        The updated report estimates market value for

the   land   and    improvements        as    of     January     1,    1994,     presuming

continued use as a steel facility, to be $4,200,000.                         We note that

the   appraisals     were    neither      identified      or     authenticated     either

before the BOR or before this Board.                   Because of the evidentiary

problems attendant to reports without foundation, and expressions

of opinions which were never subject to cross examination, see

Nordonia Hills Bd. of Edn. v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Revision (Nov. 9,

1995), B.T.A. Case No. 94-K-1227, unreported, this Board will not

rely upon either appraisal report to find value.                       However, we must

note that the allocations made at closing were in disaccord with

the   opinions      of   value     obtained        both    before      and    during   the

bankruptcy    proceedings.          This       Board      must    conclude      that   the

allocation made by the parties substantially undervalued the real

property and, therefore, is not a competent or reliable indication

of its true value.

             This    Board       must     also     address       the    value     evidence

presented by the appellees.             Mr. Yelton testified that he attempted

to eliminate sales which were not, in his opinion, arm's length

transactions.        However,      upon      cross    examination       and     subsequent

rebuttal testimony, appellant presented evidence which indicated

that Mr. Yelton's Comparable Sale No. 5, the 1989 sale of 8.59

acres between Copperweld Steel and Ohio Star Forge Company, was

actually Copperweld's contribution to a joint venture with Daido

Steel,     its     Japanese     trading      partner       and   eventual       majority


              Appellant has also brought forth evidence which calls

into     question     the     reliability       of    another    of       Mr.   Yelton's

comparables.          Mr.    Yelton    identified     the    sale    of    75.60   acres

improved with 1,048,329 square feet of building space on Oberlin

Avenue in Canton, Ohio, which sold in December, 1984 for a sale

price of $5.25 per square foot and again in November of 1986 for a

price    of   $4.82    per    square    foot.        The    appraisal     submitted     by

appellant identifies a sale at the same location.                         However, the

sale identified through appellant's appraisal is an 886 acre parcel

improved with 3,852,819 square feet of building space which sold

November, 1989 for the sale price of $2.95 per square foot.                            Mr.

Yelton's comparable sale may be the acquisition of a small portion

of a larger complex which later may have been transferred as part

of a sale of the entire complex.                Once again, this Board received

no     testimony      concerning       the   comparable       sale      considered      by

appellant's appraisal company.               Thus, our consideration of which

sale is actually more comparable to the subject is mere conjecture.

              Therefore,      we   reject    Mr.     Yelton's    reliance       upon   the

Copperweld sale to Ohio Star Forge as an indication of value and

place little weight on the sales by Republic Steel and Enduro as

those properties appear to have been a part of a larger sale

occurring within a reasonable time and about which we have little

information.        However, we find Mr. Yelton's Comparables 1 and 4,

which he believed to set the lower range of value at $4.00 per

square foot and $3.59 per square foot are both competent and

credible     indications       of      value.         While     both     comparables         are

considerably       smaller     than      the    subject,       Mr.   Yelton     faced       that

disability in his adjustments, which we find to be reasonable.

Considering     that     sale       prices      for     similar      properties       appear,

generally, to have declined over the relevant time period, this

Board finds that the lower end of Mr. Yelton's range, which we

round to $3.60 per square foot, represents competent and probative

evidence by which to value the subject property.                         We further find

that Mr. Yelton's opinion relating to the value of the land and its

underutilization       to    be     credible      and    supported       by     the   record.

Therefore,     the     value      of     the    subject,       as    determined       upon    a

preponderance of credible evidence, is as follows:

2,037,116 Sq. Feet
     @ $3.60 per square foot (rounded)                               =   $7,333,600
     Additional land value (256.49 Ac.)                              =      863,000
     Total Value                                                         $8,196,600

             Finally, this Board finds it unnecessary to reduce value

based upon the remediation costs agreed to be paid to the Ohio

Environmental        Protection        Agency.          Deductions        for       costs     of

remediation     have     not,       in     this       state,    become        the     standard

measurement of "true value" for environmentally damaged properties.

Vogelgesang v. CECOS Internatl., Inc. (1993), 85 Ohio App. 3d 339.

Instead, the appellant (or other party asserting diminution in

value) must establish the actual effect of the contamination on

fair market value.          Alder v. Licking Cty. Bd. of Revision, et al.

(Apr. 22, 1994), B.T.A. Case No. 92-R-976, unreported.                              While the

valuation     of     environmentally           contaminated          properties       remains

somewhat uncharted in this state,              it is clearly dependent upon

accepted principles of appraisal methodology                     S
                                                             CECO , supra;       Chem-

Masters Corp.        v
                     . Geauga Cty. Bd. of Revision             (Dec. 21, 1990),

B.T.A. Case No. 88-J-994, unreported.                  As the appellant has

brought forth no appraisal evidence which indicates substantial

reductions from fair market value attributable to the cost of

remediation are appropriate, this Board finds it improper to make

any deductions to Mr. Yelton's opinion of value.

            Upon     consideration     of     the   existing    record     and    the

applicable law, the Board of Tax Appeals finds and determines upon

a preponderance of credible evidence, that the value of the subject

property as of January 1, 1994 was:

Parcel No. 41-621900
342.86 acres

                                 True Value                  Taxable Value

          Land                   $ 1,319,070                    $ 461,670
          Buildings              $ 1,539,200                    $ 538,720
          Total                  $ 2,858,270                    $1,000,390

Parcel No. 46-373100
148.63 Acres

          Land                   $   718,930                    $ 251,630
          Buildings              $ 4,619,400                    $1,616,790
          Total                  $ 5,338,330                    $1,868,420

          It is the order of the Board of Tax Appeals that the

Auditor   of   Trumbull      County   list    and   assess    subject     real

property in conformity with this decision and order.                    It is

further    ordered    that    this    value    be   carried     forward    in

accordance with the law.         ohiosearchkeybta


Description: Foundry Equipment Sales Record Ohio document sample