Bank of Jonesboro v. Tax Commission
Citation | 123 S.W. 753 |
Parties | BANK OF JONESBORO v. TAX COMMISSION. |
Decision Date | 06 December 1909 |
Court | Supreme Court of Arkansas |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Pulaski County; Guy Fulke, Judge.
Petition for mandamus by the Bank of Jonesboro against the Arkansas Tax Commission. From a judgment dismissing the petition, the bank appeals. Affirmed.
Hawthorne & Hawthorne and Manning & Emerson, for appellant. Hal L. Norwood, Atty. Gen., and C. A. Cuningham, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The Bank of Jonesboro, a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Arkansas, and engaged in the banking business in Craighead county, applied to the county board of equalization for relief against an assessment returned against its property by the assessor of Craighead county. That board reduced the assessment; but the bank, still feeling aggrieved at the assessment, made application to the Arkansas Tax Commission sitting as a state board of equalization for a further reduction upon the assessment. The state board refused to act upon the ground that it had no jurisdiction to equalize assessments as between individuals, partnerships, and corporations. The bank then filed a petition for mandamus against the board in the Pulaski circuit court, Second division, for the purpose of compelling it to act. To this petition the Attorney General, on behalf of the board, filed a demurrer, which was sustained by the court, and the petition was dismissed. The bank has appealed to this court.
The only question involved on the appeal is: Did the act of May 12, 1909, creating the Arkansas Tax Commission, give it the power to raise or lower individual assessments? With reference to county boards of equalization this court has said: Board of Equalization Cases, 49 Ark. 518, 6 S. W. 1; Lyman v. Howe, 64 Ark. 436, 42 S. W. 830. By analogy the same rule applies to state boards of equalization. They are wholly the creatures of the law and have no power or authority except that which is expressly or by necessary implication given by the acts creating them. 27 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law (2d. Ed.) p. 711, and cases cited; 1 Desty on Taxation, § 103; Orr v. State Board, 3 Idaho, 190, 28 Pac. 419; Hamilton v. State, 3 Ind. 452. The act under consideration may be found in Acts Ark. 1909, p. 764. Section 11 of the act provides that said Tax Commission shall have the power and authority:
It is first insisted by counsel for appellant that these and other subdivisions of section 11 give the state board the authority to deal with and to equalize individual assessments. The act must be considered as a whole, and, to get at the meaning of any section, it must be read in the light of the other provisions of the act. Section 11 defines the duties of the board as a tax commission and section 12 confers upon it the power to act as a board of equalization of taxes. Section 12 is as follows: The rules by which the board shall be governed in the performance of its duties are specifically enumerated in the five subdivisions which follow. It will be seen that the board acts in a dual capacity: First, as a state tax commission; and, second, as a state board of equalization. It is not claimed that section 12, which defines the powers and duties of the board in the equalization of taxes, gives it any power to equalize individual assessments. We think section 11, when read in connection with section 12, relates rather to the supervision of the manner in which the assessors and county boards of equalization shall perform their duties. It also gives the Tax Commission authority to collect and preserve data to be used by it when acting in the capacity of a state board of equalization; but it does not give the state board any jurisdiction to review the action of the county boards with respect to raising or lowering individual assessments.
An act of 1903 of the state of Nebraska (Laws 1903, p. 434, c. 73, § 129) provides that the state board of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bank of Jonesboro v. Hampton
... ... Appeal ... from Pulaski Circuit Court, Second Division; F. Guy Fulk, ... Judge; affirmed ... ... Judgment affirmed ... Hawthorne & Hawthorne and Mannihg & Emerson, for appellant ... The ... commission shall have complete supervision over the ... assessment and collection of taxes and the enforcement of the ... tax laws of the State. Act May 12, 1909, section 11. All ... taxable property in the State shall be assessed at its true ... value, and to that end the commission shall compare the ... ...
-
Hayward v. Rowland
... ... higher than another species of property of equal value." ... In ... Bank of Jonesboro v. Hampton, 92 Ark. 492, ... 123 S.W. 753, the court, in interpreting this provision, ... ...
-
Hayward v. Rowland, 7.
...from which a tax may be collected shall be taxed higher than another species of property of equal value." In Bank of Jonesboro v. Hampton, 92 Ark. 496, 123 S. W. 753, 755, the court, in interpreting this provision, said: "It is true the Constitution provides that `all property subject to ta......