Board of Ed. of Lawrence County v. Workman
| Decision Date | 27 March 1953 |
| Parties | BOARD OF EDUCATION OF LAWRENCE COUNTY v. WORKMAN, Sheriff. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
Clyde L. Miller, Louisa, for appellant.
Eldred E. Adams, Louisa, Diederich & Lycan, Ashland, for appellee.
CULLEN, Commissioner.
The Board of Education of Lawrence County appeals from a judgment allowing the sheriff the full statutory fee of four percent for collection of school taxes. KRS 160.500. The judgment was based on a finding that the reasonable cost of collection exceeded four percent.
In Dickson v. Jefferson County Board of Education, 311 Ky. 781, 225 S.W.2d 672, the rule was laid down that a sheriff's compensation for collecting school taxes can not exceed the reasonable cost of collection. In four later cases this Court was called upon to determine what constituted a reasonable cost of collection under various factual situations. Wells v. Board of Education of Menifee County, Ky.1951, 244 S.W.2d 160; Davie v. Board of Education of Hickman City Schools, Ky.1952, 249 S.W.2d 954; Board of Education of Grant County v. Ballard, Ky.1952, 249 S.W.2d 956; Barren County Board of Education v. Edmunds, Ky.1952, 252 S.W.2d 882. Although recognizing that each case of this type must be decided upon the particular facts involved, the Court in all four cases followed the same general formula in computing the cost of collection.
The general formula was applied by first determining the percentage of their time the sheriff and his deputies devoted to all tax collection work, and taking this percentage of the compensation of the deputies and the sheriff. This gave the amount of compensation for personal services allocable to the cost of collecting all taxes. The ratio of school tax collections to total tax collections was next determined, and this ratio was applied to the amount of compensation for personal services allocated to the cost of collecting all taxes, thus producing the amount allocable to school tax collection. When costs other than compensation for personal services were involved, they were allocated according to the same formula, except where the costs clearly were attributable to a specific activity. In determining what sum should be allowed the sheriff as compensation for his own services, for the purpose of applying the formula, local standards of compensation were given some consideration.
While the formula has not been followed strictly in every case, and is not intended to be applied as an exact mathematical rule, it has supplied a general guide for decision of the school tax cases. However, as pointed out in Davie v. Board of Education of Hickman City Schools, Ky.1952, 249 S.W.2d 954, the keeping of more adequate and detailed records by the sheriffs might eliminate the necessity of applying any formula.
In the case now before us, the lower court used a formula of its own. The court first computed the annual compensation of all the deputies, and then added an allowance of $6,100 as personal compensation for the sheriff. To this sum was added $329 for miscellaneous office expenses. This gave $14,565.05 as total office expenses. Having determined that the amount of school tax collections represented 64.8 percent of all tax collections, the court allocated 64.8 percent, being $9,438.15, of the total office expenses to school tax collection. From the sum of $9,438.15 the court deducted $1,866.95 paid to the sheriff by the state for law enforcement work, leaving the sum of $7,571.20 as net expenses of school tax collection.
We think it is obvious that simply deducting, from the total expenses of the sheriff's office, the amount of money paid the sheriff by the state for law enforcement work, is not a proper way of determining what expenses are attributable to tax collection work. The amount of money received by the sheriff in the form of compensation has nothing at all to do with a determination of the expenses of the office. The erroneous formula applied by the lower court in this case resulted in charging all of the deputies' time, and more than two-thirds of the sheriff's time, to tax collection work.
From the record, we are unable to ascertain what percentage of the time of the sheriff and of his deputies was devoted to tax collection work, except that it is clear that Mrs. Osborn, an office clerk who was employed for eight months at a salary of $100...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Board of Ed. of Carter County v. Greenhill
...Education, 311 Ky. 781, 225 S.W.2d 672; Board of Education of Madison County v. Wagers, Ky., 239 S.W.2d 48; Board of Education of Lawrence County v. Workman, Ky., 256 S.W.2d 528. The trial judge heard proof on the reasonable cost of collecting school taxes in Carter County, and concluded th......
-
Board of Educ. of Calloway County School Dist. v. Williams, 95-SC-299-DG
...in Calloway County should be only 12 1/2 percent of the total costs to the Sheriff of all collections. Board of Education of Lawrence County v. Workman, Ky., 256 S.W.2d 528 (1953), established a general formula in computing the cost of collection. In essence, the ratio of school tax collect......
-
Hager v. McConathy
...the same time was not as great as the sheriff maintains. We think the formula employed by the sheriff is proper, Board of Ed. of Lawrence County v. Workman, Ky., 256 S.W.2d 528, but some of the items of expense claimed by the sheriff are excessive or not allowable. The evidence warrants a c......
-
Felty v. Gay
...and in most of the cases the valuation was $7,200. See Barren County Bd. of Ed. v. Edmunds, Ky., 252 S.W.2d 882; Board of Ed. of Lawrence County v. Workman, Ky., 256 S.W.2d 528; Board of Ed. of Mason County v. Collins, Ky., 259 S.W.2d 17; Board of Ed. of Caldwell County v. Lewis, Ky., 269 S......