Appeal of McLean Trucking Co., Winston-Salem, WINSTON-SALE
| Decision Date | 01 January 1969 |
| Docket Number | N,WINSTON-SALE |
| Citation | 206 S.E.2d 172,285 N.C. 552 |
| Parties | Appeal of McLEAN TRUCKING COMPANY,C., from an action of the Forsyth County Board of Commissioners placing the Taxable Situs of certain of Appellant's over-the-road vehicles in Winston Township (City of Winston-Salem), North Carolina, as of |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
W. F. Womble and Roddey M. Ligon, Jr., of Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, Winston-Salem, for the City of Winston-Salem, appellant.
P. Eugene Price, Jr., Winston-Salem, for Forsyth County, appellant.
Claude M. Hamrick and George E. Doughton, Jr., of Hamrick, Doughton & Newton, Winston-Salem, for McLean Trucking Co., appellee.
The foregoing chronology of this litigation is gleaned from the docketed records in the four appeals which have now been carried through this Court. The Supreme Court will take judicial notice of its own records. Swain v. Creasman, 260 N.C. 163, 132 S.E.2d 304 (1963). Our decisions on the three previous appeals establish these propositions:
1. The tax situs of McLean's interstate equipment for the years 1969 and 1970 was Winston Township, the boundaries of which are coterminous with the corporate boundaries of the City of Winston-Salem. The property in question should have been listed therein for 1969 and 1970 taxes. In re Trucking Co., 281 N.C. 242, 188 S.E.2d 452 (1972); In re Trucking Co., 281 N.C. 375, 189 S.E.2d 194 (1972); In re Trucking Co., 283 N.C. 650, 197 S.E.2d 520 (1973).
2. Neither the Forsyth County Board of Commissioners nor the County Board of Equalization and Review had authority to change McLean's 1969 tax listing from Broadbay Township to Winston Township for two reasons: (1) The Board of Equalization and Review had finished its work and had adjourned prior to the City's attempt to make the listing; and (2) 'as of the date of the attempted listing' the equipment could not be listed as 'discovered property.' We so held in In re Trucking Co., 281 N.C. 242, 188 S.E.2d 452 (1972). By reason of the Tax Supervisor's tardy attempt to change the listing of this property for 1969 at a time when the County Board of Equalization and Review was powerless to take such action, and our decision to that effect reported in 281 N.C. 242, 188 S.E.2d 452, the matter is Res judicata as to the year 1969 and the property in question has permanently escaped taxation by the City for that year.
3. Our decision in In re Trucking Co., 281 N.C. 242, 188 S.E.2d 452 (1972), applies to taxation of the property in question For the year 1969 only. Its application was thus limited by our decision in In re Trucking Co., 283 N.C. 650, 197 S.E.2d 520 (1973). There, speaking through Justice Higgins, we held that the word 'discovered' and the phrase 'discovered property' are not synonynous, the former meaning 'newly found, not previously known,' while the latter means Property which the tax authorities have ascertained should have been listed for tax purposes by the owner but which was not so listed, as a result of which the property has escaped taxation. That definition of 'discovered property' was then applied to the facts in this controversy, and we specifically held that McLean's listing of its interstate equipment in Broadbay Township was insufficient to prevent application of the 'discovered property' statute because (1) the listing in Broadbay Township was an Invalid listing and (2) McLean was not authorized to list its tangible personal property anywhere except at the situs of its home office. The law thus written in In re Trucking Co., 283 N.C. 650, 197 S.E.2d 520 (1973), is authoritative with respect to the discovery, listing and taxation of the property in question for the year 1970 and for any or all of the years 1965, 1966, 1967 and 1968 in which said property escaped taxation by the City.
4. The City of Winston-Salem was and is legally empowered to list said property in Winston Township for taxation for the year 1970 as 'discovered property' and collect taxes thereon for the year 1970 and, except for the year 1969, for each of the five years prior to 1970 in which said property escaped taxation. In re Trucking Co., 283 N.C. 650, 197 S.E.2d 520 (1973); G.S. § 105--331(c), (e) as written prior to the 1971 revision. This means that the City of Winston-Salem may, after listing the property in Winston Township as discovered property, levy and collect taxes on same in any or all of the years 1965, 1966, 1967 and 1968 in which said property escaped taxation by the City.
5. The property in question must be appraised for purposes of taxation 'at its true value in money' as of 1 January of each of the years 1965, 1966, 1967 and 1968. In re Trucking Co., 281 N.C. 375, 189 S.E.2d 194 (1972). If the parties cannot agree on its true value in money, resort may be had to the County Board of Equalization and Review and thereafter to the State Board of Assessment (now the Property Tax Commission) with judicial review by the courts as provided by law.
6. For the tax years 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1970 there was no statutory authority in this State for apportionment of the value of McLean's interstate equipment between or among the City and County where McLean's principal office is located and other taxing units in or out of this State. In re Trucking Co., 281 N.C. 375, 189 S.E.2d 194 (1972); Transfer Corp. v. County of Davidson, 276 N.C. 19, 170 S.E.2d 873 (1969); G.S. § 105--281 and G.S. § 105--302(a) as written prior to the 1971 revision. The burden is on the taxpayer who contends that some portion of his taxable personal property is not within the taxing jurisdiction of his domicile to prove that the same property has acquired a tax situs in another jurisdiction. Transfer Corp. v. County of Davidson, supra. There is nothing in the present record or in any of the three previous records involving this matter which tends to show that any portion of McLean's property had acquired a non-domiciliary tax situs for any of the years 1965 through 1970. Hence, arguments at this late date concerning apportionment only becloud the fundamental question of liability for home town taxes.
Applying the enumerated legal principles to the case now before us, we hold:
(1) The restraining order heretofore signed by Judge Wood was vacated by this Court (283 N.C. at 656, 197 S.E.2d 520) and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. McKoy
...of violence to the person." N.C.G.S. § 15A-2000(e)(3) (1983).3 We take judicial notice of our own records-- In re Trucking Co., 285 N.C. 552, 557, 206 S.E.2d 172, 176 (1974); In re Williamson, 67 N.C.App. 184, 185, 312 S.E.2d 239, 240 (1984)--and note that prior to entering his plea of guil......
-
City of Asheville v. State
...Edwards v. Edwards, 118 N.C.App. 464, 471-72, 456 S.E.2d 126, 131 (1995) (first omission in original) (quoting In re Trucking Co., 285 N.C. 552, 560, 206 S.E.2d 172, 178 (1974)). The parties in the present case do not dispute either that a final judgment on the merits was reached in Candler......
-
Painter v. Wake County Bd. of Ed.
...also as to all matters properly within the scope of the pleadings which could and should have been brought forward. In re Trucking Co., 285 N.C. 552, 206 S.E.2d 172 (1974); Wilson v. Hoyle, 263 N.C. 194, 139 S.E.2d 206 (1964); Hayes v. Ricard, 251 N.C. 485, 112 S.E.2d 123 (1960); Worthingto......
-
State ex rel. Utilities Com'n v. Thornburg
...315 N.C. 127, 135, 337 S.E.2d 477, 482 (1985). Duke 1988, 322 N.C. at 692, 370 S.E.2d at 569; see e.g., In re Trucking Co., 285 N.C. 552, 560, 206 S.E.2d 172, 177-78 (1974). More specifically, in addressing the issue of whether a Commission order can be deemed res judicata this Court has he......