Big Wood Canal Company, a Corp. v. Unemployment Compensation Division of the Industrial Accident Board, 7000

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Idaho
Writing for the CourtHOLDEN, J.
Citation63 Idaho 785,126 P.2d 15
PartiesBIG WOOD CANAL COMPANY, a corporation, Appellant, v. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION DIVISION OF THE INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT BOARD, Respondent
Decision Date19 May 1942
Docket Number7000

126 P.2d 15

63 Idaho 785

BIG WOOD CANAL COMPANY, a corporation, Appellant,
v.

UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION DIVISION OF THE INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT BOARD, Respondent

No. 7000

Supreme Court of Idaho

May 19, 1942


UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION-TAXATION-EXEMPTION-COVERED EMPLOYER-CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-STATUTES, CONSTRUCTION OF.

1. To successfully claim an exemption from a general tax, whether property or excise, it must appear by either express terms or necessary implication that the exemption was intended.

2. Services performed for a mutual non-profit association engaged in irrigation are within the provisions of the Unemployment Compensation Law excepting from "covered employment" services performed in the employ of an "individual owner or tenant operating a farm in connection with cultivation of soil, the production and harvesting of crops," since to construe the provision as confining the exception to a single individual owner or tenant would render it unconstitutional. (Sess. Laws, 1941, c. 182, p. 393, sec. 18-5 (f).)

3. The Legislature's power to make classifications for purposes of taxation is limited by the condition that the classification must be founded on some reasonable difference between the parties or conditions, and it cannot rest upon whim or caprice.

4. Where a statute is open to two constructions, one of which would render it unconstitutional, the construction which would uphold it will be adopted.

APPEAL from the Industrial Accident Board of the State of Idaho.

From an order holding appellant is a covered employer within the meaning of the Unemployment Compensation Law, the Big Wood Canal Company appealed. Reversed and remanded with directions.

Reversed and remanded, with directions. Costs awarded to appellant.

Bissell & Bird, for Appellant.

Appellant's employment constitutes "services performed in the employ of an individual owner or tenant operating a farm in connection with the cultivation of soil, the production and harvesting of crops or the raising, feeding or managing of livestock, * * * ," under sec. 18-5 (f) of the unemployment compensation law as amended by chap. 182, Sess. Laws, 1941, and should have been classed as excepted employment and given immunity from the payment of the excise tax of such law: (Keeney v. Beasman, 182 A. 566, 103 A. L. R. 1515; Big Wood Canal Co. v. Unemployment Comp. Div., 61 Idaho 247, 100 P.2d 49; Stratton v. R. R. Commission, 198 P. 1051; Koger v. Woods, Inc., 31 P.2d 255; Sanderson v. Salmon River Canal Co., 34 Idaho 303, 308, 200 P. 341, 26 A. L. R. 292; Culpepper v. White, 184 S.E. 349; Ganzer v. Chapman, 11 P.2d 115.)

The Industrial Accident Board, by levying the excise tax of the Unemployment Compensation Law upon appellant, and at the same time excepting such instrumentalities as highway, irrigation and drainage districts, has acted unreasonably and illogically, and the resulting classification is discriminatory, arbitrary and unconstitutional under art. 1, sec. 13, Idaho Constitution and the 14th Amendment of the federal constitution, since appellant and such districts are all of the same general class, being non-profit, mutual and non-governmental, and naturally, reasonably and intrinsically falling into the same category for legislative and taxing purposes: (12 Am. Jur. 257; Concordia Fire Ins. Co. v. People, 292 U.S. 535, 78 L.Ed. 1411, 54 S.Ct. 830; In re Mallon, 16 Idaho 737, 102 P. 374; 12 Am. Jur. Constitutional Law, sec. 481; 16 C. J. S., Constitutional Law, sec. 489; Utah Light & Traction Co. v. State Tax Commission, 68 P.2d 759.)

Thos. M. Robertson, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Appellant is not exempted from coverage under the Unemployment Compensation Law by the provisions of Sec. 18-5 (d) of said law. (Unemployment Compensation Law, Sec. 18-5 (d); 1941 Session Laws, Chap. 65, Sec. 1 (18-5(d)), page 125; 1941 Session Laws, Chap. 182, sec. 1 (18-5 (j)), page 394; Idaho Code Annotated, Sections 30-1001, 68-101, 22-301, 37-501.)

The classifications for exemption made in Sec. 18-5 (d) of the Unemployment Compensation Law are in all respects reasonable and valid in themselves and in purview of the purposes of the Unemployment Compensation Law. (Unemployment Compensation Law, Sec. 18-5 (d) (supra); Idaho Constitution, Art. I, sec. 13, Art. VII, Sec. 5; United States Constitution, Amendment XIV, Sec. 1; Carmichael v. Southern Coal and Coke Co.,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • Eberle v. Nielson, No. 8541
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • February 13, 1957
    ...59 Idaho 321, 82 P.2d 649; State v. Peterson, 61 Idaho 50, 97 P.2d 603; Big Wood Canal Co. v. Unemployment Comp. Div. of Ind. Acc. Bd., 63 Idaho 785, 126 P.2d 15; State v. Groseclose, 67 Idaho 71, 171 P.2d 863; Boughten v. Price, 70 Idaho 243, 215 P.2d 286; Manning v. Sims, 308 Ky. 587, 213......
  • Rich v. Williams, No. 8788
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • June 24, 1959
    ...v. Enking, 59 Idaho 321, 82 P.2d 649; State v. Peterson, 61 Idaho 50, 97 P.2d 603; Big Wood Canal Co. v. Unemployment C. Division, Etc., 63 Idaho 785, 126 P.2d The burden of showing the unconstitutionality of a statute is upon the party asserting it, and invalidity must be clearly shown. Eb......
  • Link's School of Business, Inc. v. Employment Sec. Agency, No. 9205
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • March 25, 1963
    ...v. Unemployment Compensation Division, Etc., 65 Idaho 370, 144 P.2d 203; Big Wood Canal Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Division, etc., 63 Idaho 785, 126 P.2d 15; Carstens Packing Co. v. Industrial Accident Board, 63 Idaho 613, 123 P.2d 1001; Phipps v. Boise Street Car Co., 61 Idaho 740, 1......
  • In re Liability of Farmers Cooperative Creamery Co., 7160
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • January 24, 1945
    ...100 P.2d 49, 139 A.L.R. 1165; Big Wood Canal Company v. Unemployment Compensation Division of the Industrial Accident Board, 63 Ida. 785, 126 P.2d 15, 146 A.L.R. 1321.) The conclusion reached obviates the necessity of determining whether these truck drivers were or were not independent cont......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • Eberle v. Nielson, No. 8541
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • February 13, 1957
    ...59 Idaho 321, 82 P.2d 649; State v. Peterson, 61 Idaho 50, 97 P.2d 603; Big Wood Canal Co. v. Unemployment Comp. Div. of Ind. Acc. Bd., 63 Idaho 785, 126 P.2d 15; State v. Groseclose, 67 Idaho 71, 171 P.2d 863; Boughten v. Price, 70 Idaho 243, 215 P.2d 286; Manning v. Sims, 308 Ky. 587, 213......
  • Rich v. Williams, No. 8788
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • June 24, 1959
    ...v. Enking, 59 Idaho 321, 82 P.2d 649; State v. Peterson, 61 Idaho 50, 97 P.2d 603; Big Wood Canal Co. v. Unemployment C. Division, Etc., 63 Idaho 785, 126 P.2d The burden of showing the unconstitutionality of a statute is upon the party asserting it, and invalidity must be clearly shown. Eb......
  • Link's School of Business, Inc. v. Employment Sec. Agency, No. 9205
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • March 25, 1963
    ...v. Unemployment Compensation Division, Etc., 65 Idaho 370, 144 P.2d 203; Big Wood Canal Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Division, etc., 63 Idaho 785, 126 P.2d 15; Carstens Packing Co. v. Industrial Accident Board, 63 Idaho 613, 123 P.2d 1001; Phipps v. Boise Street Car Co., 61 Idaho 740, 1......
  • In re Liability of Farmers Cooperative Creamery Co., 7160
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • January 24, 1945
    ...100 P.2d 49, 139 A.L.R. 1165; Big Wood Canal Company v. Unemployment Compensation Division of the Industrial Accident Board, 63 Ida. 785, 126 P.2d 15, 146 A.L.R. 1321.) The conclusion reached obviates the necessity of determining whether these truck drivers were or were not independent cont......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT