Citations
- 152 Ohio St. 207
Full opinion text
Taft, J.
Appellants’ complaints are that these cottages were classified as real estate instead of personal property for purposes of taxation. There is no contention that the cottages could not be taxed at all because they were located on land leased from the state. Cf. City of Toledo v. Jenkins et al., Bd. of Tax Appeals, 143 Ohio St., 141, 54 N. E. (2d), 656.
State lands adjacent to Buckeye Lake are leased as provided in Sections 471, 13965, 13966 and 13968, General Code. Section 13966, dealing with the leasing of such lands, provides in part:
“* * * provided always, however, that each and every building or other valuable structure erected thereon by any person, or persons, or corporation may be taxed as other property of individuals or corporation in the same locality.”
This reference must be to the taxation of other similar property of individuals and corporations.
Appellants contend first that these cottages are not “land and improvements thereon,” within the meaning of Section 2 of Article XII of the Constitution. For the reasons hereinafter stated it is not necessary to pass upon that contention.
Section 2, Article XII, provides in part:
“Land and improvements thereon shall he taxed by uniform rule according to value.”
Nothing in the Constitution prohibits the taxation of other classes of property “by uniform rule according to value.” Section 2, Article XII, specifically recognizes and provides against “limiting the general power” of the General Assembly “subject to the provisions of Article I” (Bill of Rights) “to determine the subjects and methods of taxation or exemptions therefrom.”
It follows that the General Assembly has authority to make provision for taxation of personal property by uniform rule according to value. No contention is made that the General Assembly could not classify these cottages for such taxation, even if they are personal property and even though the General Assembly classified other kinds of personal property for taxation in a different manner. Cf. State, ex rel. Struble, v. Davis et al., Tax Comm., 132 Ohio St., 555, 9 N. E. (2d), 684.
Section 5322, General Code, provides:
“The terms ‘r