State v. State Tax Commission

• Citation: 243 S.W. 887,295 Mo. 298
• Decision Date: 18 July 1922
• Docket Number: No. 23695.,23695.
• Parties: STATE ex rel. LACLEDE LAND & IMPROVEMENT CO. v. STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

243 S.W. 887

295 Mo. 298

STATE ex rel. LACLEDE LAND & IMPROVEMENT CO. v. STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI.

No. 23695.

Supreme Court of Missouri, in Banc.

July 18, 1922.

Rehearing Denied August 28, 1922.

Original action in mandamus by the State, on the relation of the Laclede Land & Improvement Company, a corporation, against the State Tax Commission of Missouri. Peremptory writ refused.

Daniel & Daniel, of Piedmont, for relator.

Jesse W. Barrett, Atty. Gen., and Merrill E. Otis, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

GRAVES, J.

Original action in mandamus. Relator, a Missouri corporation, is the owner of some 41,000 acres of land in Reynolds county. This is what is called "cutover land," which means land from which has been cut all the timber of value. It is averred that this land is not worth more than $2 per acre; that the county assessor wrongfully and fraudulently assessed it at $2.50 per acre; that the county board of equalization, although fully apprised of the facts, raised the assessment to $3 per acre; that the state board of equalization thereafter ordered and adjudged an increase of 20 per cent. which made the ultimate valuation $3.60 per acre; that such valuation was much above the actual value of such lands; that large portions of the lands in said county were assessed at less than their actual value; that on April 23, 1922, the relator presented its claims to the Missouri tax commission, and requested it to readjust the valuation of relator's property, in view of the fact that other properties were assessed at less than actual value, whilst the properties of relator were assessed in excess of actual value; that said tax commission declined to assume jurisdiction of such case; and the prayer is to require said tax commission to readjust the valuation on relator's property under the conditions stated. The relator further says that upon the filing of its petition with the tax commission it—

"was the duty of said state tax commission to grant to your petitioner a hearing and an opportunity to establish the facts herein and in said complaint averred, and upon such allegations being established by legal and competent evidence to the satisfaction of said tax commission to lower and reduce the assessment of the land aforesaid to a sum not to exceed its true value, and to a sum not to exceed the proportion of its true value at which it found other lands in said county to be assessed after having increased the assessment of such as were materially below the average proportion of the true value at which such lands were assessed as required by article 4 of chapter 119, Revised Statutes of 1919," etc.

The petition then avers that on May 3d the said state tax commission refused to hear evidence upon the matter, on the ground that it had no jurisdiction as stated hereinabove. The prayer is that this court compel such state tax commission to proceed to hear the evidence as to the irregularity of the assessment of lands in said county, and, if the lands of relator have been inequitably assessed, that proper relief be granted. In other words, the petition for our writ proceeds upon the theory that the Missouri state tax commission Is legally bound to adjust the inequalities in the individual assessments of the sundry individuals in the several counties in the state; not only so but that this might be done after the state equalization board has met and equalized the assessments as to the several counties of the state.

The return of the respondents is to the effect (1) that it was without power or right to do this; and (2) that if it did possess the right, then the exercise thereof was purely discretionary, and therefore not a subject for mandamus. Further details are left to the opinion.

I. The state tax commission is a nondescript when it comes to the assessment of property. The power to assess property is fixed in named officers under the law, and, unless the Tax Commission Act repeals that law, such commission cannot assess property. To rule that such Tax Commission Act (article 4 of chapter 119, R. S. 1919) repealed the law as to whom the duties were imposed on as to the assessment of property would be preposterous. No agency of the state has considered that such commission has been given such power. The language of the act itself (save some loosely drawn sections, or parts of sections) indicates no such purpose. After the assessment the law provides that there shall be certain county agencies to fix and determine the wrongs committed by the assessor. To hold that these agencies were disturbed or superseded by the Tax Commission Act would likewise be preposterous.

The Tax Commission Act contemplates that such commission may, in a proper manner, see that these several agencies empowered to assess property perform their duties, but it does not contemplate that such commission perform their duties for them. True it is that such commission may take evidence as to inequalities of assessments, but this is for the sole purpose of advising the state board of equalization. What information, that the tax commission gathers by authority of law, it can give, and should give, to the state board of equalization. The state board of equalization cannot act upon individual discrepancies in the official work of its subordinate officers, nor can the tax commission (a mere advisory commission for the state board of equalization) go further. The tax commission may gather facts...