Appeal of National Bank of Tulsa
| Decision Date | 22 January 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 37383,37383 |
| Citation | 312 P.2d 495,1957 OK 17 |
| Parties | Appeal of NATIONAL BANK OF TULSA from an Order of the Board of Equalization of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. In assessing property for ad valorem tax purposes, uniformity and equality required by the 14th Amendment to the Federal Constitution takes precedence over the requirement of Art. X, sec. 8 of the Oklahoma Constitution that property be assessed 'at its fair cash value' where compliance with both provisions is impossible.
2. In a trial de novo in the district court on appeal from the decision of the county equalization board denying a protest to the assessed valuation of taxable property as fixed by the county assessor, the issues to be tried are those raised by the protest filed with said board.
3. In a trial de novo in the district court on appeal from the decision of the County equalization board denying a protest to the assessed valuation of taxable property fixed by the county assessor, the burden of proof rests upon the protestant because he is the party seeking affirmative relief.
4. The judgment of the district court fixing the assessed valuation of property for ad valorem tax purposes, rendered on appeal and trial de novo from an order of the county equalization board denying taxpayer's protest to assessed valuation thereof as fixed by the county assessor, will not be vacated by this court on appeal for insufficiency of evidence to support it where said judgment is not against the clear weight thereof.
Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County; Lewis Johnson, Judge.
Appeal by the County Assessor of Tulsa County from a judgment of the District Court on trial de novo on appeal by the taxpayer from a judgment and order of the County Equalization Board denying a protest to the assessed valuation for ad valorem tax purposes as fixed by the said County Assessor on the lot and bank building of the National Bank of Tulsa. Judgment of the District Court affirmed.
J. Howard Edmondson, County Atty. of Tulsa County, Donald D. Cameron, Chief Civil Assistant, Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.
Jos. L. Hull, James E. Bush, Ralph L. Abercrombie, Tulsa, for defendant in error.
Joe Stamper, Antlers, R. F. Barry, R. S. Fellows, J. C. Pinkerton, Tulsa, C. N. Haskell, Gerald B. Klein, Henry L. Fist, Floyd L. Rheam, Marvin T. Johnson, A. C. Saunders, Tulsa, amici curiae.
This is an appeal by the Tulsa County Assessor from a judgment, of the District Court of Tulsa County, fixing the valuation of the National Bank of Tulsa Building for 1953 ad valorem tax purposes. The trial court heard the matter de novo on appeal by the National Bank of Tulsa from a judgment of the Tulsa County Equalization Board. The parties will be referred to as 'the assessor' and 'the bank'.
The bank duly filed a protest to the action of the assessor in raising the assessed valuation of its real property to $1,846,950 for the year 1953 from its previous valuation of $1,522,930. The protest was heard and denied by said equalization board, from which judgment and order, the bank appealed to the district court. This appeal is from the judgment of the district court reducing the assessed valuation for said year of 1953 to $1,266,324. To better understand the points at issue, it is essential to compare the two valuations. The assessor and the district court both fixed the assessed valuation at 30% of what each found the market or sound value of the property to be. There is no important difference in the market value each placed on the lot, approximately $1,000,000. The conflict arises over the cash or market value placed on the building which was more than 25 years old and contained 322,108 square feet. The county assessor and the district court both determined the market value to be the cost of reproduction less depreciation. The assessor found the cost of reproduction to be $23 per square foot and the depreciation to be 2% per year limited to a total of 15 years or 30%. The district court found the cost of reproduction to be $20 per square foot and depreciation to be 2% per year limited to a total of 25 years or 50%. An affirmance of the judgment confirms the court's computation; a reversal reinstates the assessor's figures. The two modes of computation result in the assessed valuations hereinabove set out. Both sides of the controversy have been exhaustively briefed by the parties and by amicus curiae, followed by oral argument in open court.
The bank's protest to the assessed valuation was founded upon the following allegations of error:
'(1) That it was the duty of the Assessor to seek to have assessed the same class of property at a uniform valuation throughout the county, but the valuation proposed to be fixed by said Assessor is not uniform and is at a higher rate per square foot of floor space than other buildings of the same class or character within said county, and that the valuation placed thereon by said Assessor is in excess of the value placed by him on other buildings of the same class in the City of Tulsa and is discriminatory and unjust.
'(2) That the valuation placed by said Assessor upon the land of this complainant, exclusive of improvements thereon, is not uniform with the valuations placed by said Assessor upon other land in the same vicinity and of similar character as the land of this complainant, and is at a higher rate than that fixed by the Assessor upon adjoining lands in the same vicinity and having the same general elements of value as the land of this complainant, and that such assessment is discriminatory and unjust and should be equalized by this board with the assessed values placed on such other lands.'
Because there had been no such sales, the market value of the bank's property could not be established from evidence of sales of other pieces of property, comparable in size, type and value. Consequently, it was necessary to adopt other methods by which the computation could be made. Two of such methods most nearly accurate and reliable are shown by the record to be the reproduction cost less depreciation method and the capitalization of income method. The record herein is replete with testimony of expert witnesses of the value of the bank's property computed in each of the two methods and of the value of other similar properties in the same area. Similar evidence was lacking in the case of Mid-Continent Bldg. Co. v. Board of Equalization of Tulsa County, 184 Okl. 525, 88 P.2d 626, 627, wherein it was said that, an 'assessment at a higher valuation than other real estate of like grade and quality within the County would constitute a violation of appellant's constitutional rights.' That pronouncement was founded upon the earlier opinion in the case of State v. State ex rel. Shull, 142 Okl. 293, 286 P. 891, 900, wherein it was pointed out that 'the very purpose and intent of the Legislature in creating an equalization board was for the purpose of equalizing the taxes of the taxpayers in the respective counties * * *'.
When, however, no question is raised as to the comparative assessed valuations of separate but similar properties in the same class, the inquiry resolves itself into one solely dependent upon the relationship between the assessed and market values of the subject property. The latter situation obtained in the cases of In re Assessment of Property of Western L. & P. Corp., 169 Okl. 53, 35 P.2d 946; Sinclair Prairie Oil Marketing Co. v. State Bd., 173 Okl. 74, 47 P.2d 120; Sinclair-Prairie Oil Co. v. State, 169 Okl. 334, 37 P.2d 298; Sinclair Prairie Oil Co. v. State, 174 Okl. 109, 50 P.2d 150; and Stanolind Crude Oil P. Co. v. State Bd., 174 Okl. 320, 49 P.2d 1089, and others cited by the assessor and by amicus curiae. All of the immediately above cited cases reach the same conclusion that,
'No particular method of valuation is prescribed by the Constitution or the statutes for the guidance of the Board of Equalization in determining the value of property, and the method used is immaterial so long as it does not appear that the value so determined and fixed by the board exceeds the fair cash value of the property.' Sinclair Prairie Oil Co. v. State, 174 Okl. 109, 50 P.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boy Scouts of America, Inc. v. Thompson
...or 50%. The county assessor appealed to this court and the judgments were affirmed. Several of these decisions are Appeal of National Bank of Tulsa, Okl., 312 P.2d 495; Appeal of National Bank of Commerce of Tulsa, Okl., 316 P.2d 175; and Appeal of Boy Scouts of America, Okl., 317 P.2d 262.......
-
Davis v. McCarty
...and we have previously found such a 'very clear' conflict between the State and Federal Constitutions. In the case of Appeal of National Bank of Tulsa, Okl., 312 P.2d 495, we held in the first paragraph of the 'In assessing property for ad valorem tax purposes, uniformity and equality requi......
-
Appeal of Billings Community Elevator, Inc.
...the assessor's argument. In harmony with the statute now appearing as 68 O.S.1971 § 2461, this court held in Appeal of National Bank of Tulsa (1957), Okl., 312 P.2d 495, and in the Matter of Appeal of National Bank of Commerce of Tulsa (1957), Okl., 316 P.2d 175, that: 'In a trial de novo i......
-
Southland Associates v. Clay
...this Court for insufficiency of evidence to support it where the judgment is not against the clear weight thereof. Appeal of National Bank of Tulsa, 1957 OK 17, 312 P.2d 495. Board has given us no grounds for AFFIRMED. BUETTNER, P.J., and ADAMS, J., concur. ...