Anaconda Copper Mining Co. v. Junod
| Decision Date | 07 July 1924 |
| Docket Number | 5502. |
| Citation | 227 P. 1001,71 Mont. 132 |
| Parties | ANACONDA COPPER MINING CO. v. JUNOD, STATE TREASURER. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Lewis and Clark County; W. H. Poorman Judge.
Action by the Anaconda Copper Mining Company against O. H. Junod, as State Treasurer. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded, with instructions.
W. D Rankin, Atty. Gen., and L. V. Ketter, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.
L. O Evans, D. M. Kelly, J. V. Dwyer, and J. A. Groeneveld, all of Butte, for respondent.
Action to recover taxes paid under protest. The facts as disclosed by the complaint and stipulation of the parties entered into at the time of the submission of the general demurrer are: That the plaintiff, Anaconda Copper Mining Company, a corporation, is the owner and operator of the Butte Hill mine and Nettie mine, both situate in Silver Bow county; that it is also the owner and operator of milling and reduction works situate in Cascade and Deer Lodge counties, Mont.; that the state board of equalization computed the net proceeds of the Butte Hill mine for the year ending May 31, 1923, to be $2,978,742.68, and assessed a license tax of $44,682.14; that the net proceeds of the Nettie mine for the same period were determined by the said board to be $253,640.49, and a license tax was assessed at $3,805.60; that the taxes paid by plaintiff on its milling and reduction works during said period were the sum of $322,202.69; that the minerals and metals were extracted from the ores taken from said mines in said milling and reduction works of plaintiff; that in its statement to the said board, as provided by section 2089, Revised Codes of 1921, the plaintiff claimed as a deduction from the gross yield in dollars and cents realized from the ores extracted from the Butte Hill mine the sum of $150,685.86, as taxes paid on the milling and reduction works, and the sum of $70,622.61 for fire insurance upon said works; that the plaintiff claimed a deduction from the gross moneys realized from ores extracted from the Nettie mine of $7,136.10 for taxes on said milling and reduction works, and the sum of $1,554.41 for fire insurance, and that said deductions represent that portion of the entire amount of moneys expended by plaintiff for taxes and insurance that the cost of extraction of the metals and minerals from the ores of each of said mines bore to the cost of the extraction of the metals and minerals from all ores treated in said milling and reduction works for said period. The state board of equalization refused to allow these deductions. Thereupon the license tax was paid unconditionally in the following amounts: For Butte Hill mine, $41,362.51; and for the Nettie mine, $3,675.25; that the amounts paid under protest were $3,319.63 and $130.36 for the Butte Hill mine and Nettie mine respectively, the same representing the deductions claimed by the plaintiff for a portion of the taxes and fire insurance premiums on its milling and reduction works.
The learned trial judge overruled the demurrer, and, the defendant electing to stand thereon, judgment was entered for plaintiff and from which defendant appeals.
The sole question for determination is whether taxes and fire insurance premiums paid upon milling and reduction works are deductible as a part of the cost of extracting the minerals and metals from ores taken from mines in computing the net proceeds of mines.
The point raised is one of first impression in this state. We are unable to find any decisions in reference thereto, and hence resort must be had to the statutes to ascertain the intent of the Legislature. This is the fundamental duty of the courts in every instance of statutory construction.
The metalliferous mines' license tax is set forth in sections 2344 to 2355, inclusive, Revised Codes of 1921. These sections provide for an annual mines' license tax of $1, together with an additional sum of 1 1/2 per cent. of the net proceeds of all mines or mine property in this state. The net proceeds upon which the license tax is imposed are calculated and computed in the same manner and upon the same basis as net proceeds of mines are determined for purposes of general taxation. Section 2347. The general taxation law in reference to mines and mining property is found in sections 2088 to 2096, inclusive, Revised Codes 1921. Section 2089 makes it imperative upon mine operators each year, between the 1st and 10th days of June, to file with the state board of equalization a verified statement of the gross yield of metals or minerals from each mine owned or worked by them and from which the board determines the net proceeds for the purposes of taxation. The statement must show:
"1. The name and address of the owner or lessee of the mine.
2. The description and location of the mine.
3. The number of tons of ore or other mineral products or deposits extracted and treated or sold from the mine during the period covered by the statement.
4. The amount and character of such ores, mineral products or deposits, and the yield of such ores, mineral products or deposits to such person, corporation, or association so engaged in mining, in constituents of commercial value; that is to say, the number of ounces of gold or silver, pounds of copper or lead, tons of coal, barrels of petroleum, or other crude or mineral oil, or other commercially valuable constituents of said ores or mineral products or deposits, measured by standard units of measurement, yielded to such person, corporation, or association so engaged in mining, during the period covered by the statement.
5. The gross yield or value in dollars and cents.
6. Actual cost of extracting same from mine.
7. Actual cost of transporting to place of reduction or sale.
8. Actual cost of reduction or sale.
9. Actual cost of marketing the product, and conversion of same into money.
10. Cost of construction, repairs and betterments of mines, and costs of repairs and replacements of reduction works.
11. The assessed valuation of reduction works for the calendar year next preceding the year within which such return is made."
And, so far as applicable here, section 2090 is as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial