To amend sections 5703.42, 5703.52, 5703.60, 5703.70, 5717.01, 5717.011, and 5717.02 and to enact section 5717.021 of the Revised Code to modify the tax enforcement authority of the department of taxation and the board of tax appeals.
HB613 would make a broad set of procedural changes to Ohio’s tax administration and appeals process. The bill requires the Department of Taxation to expand taxpayer assistance through problem resolution officers, publish contact information for those officers, and provide an online form for complaints about delayed or unresolved matters. It also directs the tax commissioner to maintain employee training, report more detailed audit and appeal statistics in the department’s annual report, prohibit the use of assessed tax amounts as employee production quotas, and establish performance monitoring procedures that include taxpayer evaluations.
The bill also revises how the tax commissioner handles petitions for reassessment and refund claims. It imposes deadlines for hearings and final determinations, allows settlement conferences, requires disclosure of proposed final determinations upon request, limits interest accrual on reassessed taxes after one year while a petition is pending, and permits certain corrected assessments and refund adjustments. In addition, it creates a new appeal path to the Board of Tax Appeals when the commissioner does not issue a final determination or proposed final determination within one year after the relevant hearing or petition filing, and it shifts the burden of proof to the commissioner in those late-action appeals if the taxpayer makes a prima facie showing.
HB613 would amend several sections of the Revised Code governing tax appeals, including appeals from county boards of revision, local boards of tax review, and the tax commissioner, and it would enact new section 5717.021. The new section is especially significant because it gives taxpayers and refund applicants a direct appeal remedy when the department does not act within the bill’s time limits. The bill’s changes would apply to appeals filed on or after December 31, 2026, giving the department and the Board of Tax Appeals time to adjust procedures before the new rules take effect.
The overall sentiment reflected by the bill’s introduction is generally pro-taxpayer and administrative-reform oriented, with an emphasis on transparency, responsiveness, and timeliness in tax enforcement. Because the bill was only introduced and no committee testimony or votes are provided, there is no recorded public debate in the available materials. Still, the structure of the bill suggests support for stronger taxpayer protections and more accountability within the Department of Taxation.
The main points of potential contention are the added administrative burden on the Department of Taxation and the Board of Tax Appeals, the new mandatory deadlines, and the burden-shifting rule in delayed appeals. Those provisions could be viewed by the department as limiting enforcement flexibility or increasing litigation risk, while taxpayers and advocates would likely see them as necessary checks on delay and opaque decision-making. The bill also restricts the commissioner’s ability to use corrected assessments in certain circumstances, which may be another area of concern for tax administrators.
HB613 would significantly alter Ohio tax administration law by adding taxpayer-service requirements, reporting obligations, internal performance rules for tax employees, and new procedural deadlines for reassessment and refund disputes. It would amend sections 5703.42, 5703.52, 5703.60, 5703.70, 5717.01, 5717.011, and 5717.02, and create section 5717.021, thereby changing both the Department of Taxation’s enforcement practices and the Board of Tax Appeals’ appellate jurisdiction and procedures. The bill would affect taxpayers, refund claimants, tax practitioners, the tax commissioner, department employees, and the Board of Tax Appeals.
The available context suggests the bill is intended as a taxpayer-friendly reform measure focused on transparency, timeliness, and accountability in tax administration. No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no evidence of formal support or opposition in the available materials. Based on the text alone, the bill appears to be framed positively toward taxpayers and procedural fairness rather than toward expanding enforcement power.
Likely areas of contention include the bill’s strict deadlines for hearings and final determinations, the one-year trigger for a direct appeal to the Board of Tax Appeals, and the requirement that the tax commissioner bear the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence in certain delayed appeals. The Department of Taxation may view these provisions as constraining its discretion and increasing workload, while taxpayers would likely favor them as remedies for delay and uncertainty. The prohibition on using assessed tax amounts as employee quotas and the limits on corrected assessments may also draw concern from tax administrators who rely on those tools for enforcement efficiency.