Box Elder County v. Conley

• Decision Date: 07 January 1930
• Docket Number: 4731
• Citation: 75 Utah 199,284 P. 105
• Court: Utah Supreme Court
• Parties: BOX ELDER COUNTY et al. v. CONLEY, County Assessor et al

284 P. 105

75 Utah 199

BOX ELDER COUNTY et al. v. CONLEY, County Assessor et al

No. 4731

Supreme Court of Utah

January 7, 1930

Appeal from District Court, First District, Box Elder County; Chris Mathison, Judge.

Proceedings by Box Elder County and G. G. Sweeten and others, as members of the County Commission, against John F. Conley, as County Assessor, and Heber W. Perry, as County Treasurer, of Box Elder County. Judgment in favor of plaintiffs, and defendants appeal.

AFFIRMED.

George P. Parker, Atty. Gen., and M. Logan Rich, Asst. Atty. Gen for appellants.

Lewis Jones, Co. Atty. and J. W. Horsley, both of Brigham City, for respondents.

ELIAS HANSEN, J. CHERRY, C. J., and STRAUP, EPHRAIM HANSON, and FOLLAND, JJ., concur.

OPINION

ELIAS HANSEN, J.

This proceeding was begun in the district court of Box Elder county, Utah, pursuant to the provisions of the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (Laws Utah 1925, c. 24). The facts upon which this controversy is founded are these: During the month of March, 1927, an automobile was assembled at Oakland Cal., and shipped to Box Elder county, Utah. On May 1, 1927, one Vance H. Tingey, a resident and freeholder of Box Elder county, Utah, purchased the automobile. The county commissioners of Box Elder county, Utah, contend that the automobile was not taxable as the property of Vance H. Tingey for the year 1927. The county assessor and the county treasurer of Box Elder county, Utah, contend that the automobile was taxable for the year 1927. That is the only question involved in this proceeding. The trial court found that the automobile was not taxable for the year 1927. The county assessor and county treasurer prosecute this appeal from the judgment.

The determination of the question which divides the parties involves a construction of the following provisions of our statutory law:

"The assessor must, before the first Monday of May of each year, ascertain the names of all taxable inhabitants, and all property in the county subject to taxation, except such as is required to be assessed by the state board of equalization, and must assess such property to the person by whom it was owned or claimed, or in whose possession or control it was at twelve o'clock m. of the 1st day of January next preceding, and at its value on that date. Credits must be assessed as provided in § 5878 and subd. 6 of § 5877. No mistake in the name of the owner or supposed owner of property renders the assessment thereof invalid. In order that the assessors, as provided in § 5086, shall have their offices fully acquainted with all the property in the respective counties, they shall be required to visit each separate district or precinct, either in person or by deputy, annually, and in person or by deputy annually inspect the property they are required to assess. The intent of the last two provisions is to require assessors to acquire as full knowledge as possible of the property that should be entered upon the assessment roll in their respective counties, so that all property shall be assessed and bear its share of the burden of taxation." Comp. Laws Utah 1917, § 5876, p. 1148.

"When any personal property liable to taxation is brought into a county at any time after the 1st day of January, and such property has not been assessed for that year, it must be listed and assessed the same as if it had been in the county at the time of the regular assessment, and such assessment shall be reported by the Assessor to the Auditor, if made after the assessment book has been delivered to the County Treasurer, and the Auditor shall charge the Treasurer with the taxes thereon, and the tax must be collected by the Treasurer as provided in this title." Laws Utah 1919, § 5921, p. 322.

The law applicable to a state of facts such as exist in this case is thus stated in Cooley on Taxation (4th Ed.) § 446, vol. 2:

"Of course, it is necessary that there be a time as of which the taxable situs of property is to be fixed, whether the situs is dependent on the location of the property or of the person. Generally, a date is fixed by statute as of which the situs of property for purpose of taxation depends, at least so far as the place within the state where property is to be taxed is concerned. The legislature may fix a definite date as of which the situs of personal property for taxation is to be determined, and may also provide for the taxation of certain property brought into the state after the tax date; but in the latter case the statutes should be so construed, if possible, as to prevent double taxation. If no tax date is fixed by statute, then the date of the levy governs.

"Unless otherwise provided by statute, personal property brought within the state or taxing district after the tax day is not taxable, where the power to tax depends on the location of the property, and on the other hand, the removal of property or the person after the tax day does not relieve the property from the tax."

To the same effect see Hammond Lumber Co. v. Smart, 129 La. 945, 57 So. 277, 38 L.R.A. (N.S.) 857; 26 R. C. L. § 235, p. 268.

The following cases support the general rule of law that, where the taxable status of property relates to a day certain in each year, no taxes can be legally assessed and levied for a particular year unless the conditions requisite to liability exist on the day fixed. White v. State of Georgia, 51 Ga. 252; Wangler Bros. v. Black Hawk Co., 56 Iowa 384, 9 N.W. 314; Commonwealth v. P. Lorillard Co., 136 Va. 258, 118 S.E. 323; People v. City of St. Louis, 291 Ill. 600, 126 N.E. 529; Southern Ins. Co. v. Board of Assessors et al., 49 La. Ann. 401, 21 So. 913; Long v. Culp, 14 Kan. 412; Oregon Navigation Co. v. City of Portland, 2 Ore. 81; Herzfeld-Phillipson Co. v. Milwaukee, 177 Wis. 431, 189 N.W. 661; Natick & C. St. Ry. Co. v. Wellesley, 207 Mass. 514, 93 N.E. 834; Powers v. Worcester, 210 Mass. 471, 97 N.E. 95; Seward County v. Jones, 105 Neb. 705, 181 N.W. 652; Wildberger v. Shaw, 84 Miss. 442, 36 So. 539; Rogers v. Gookin, 198 Mass. 434, 85 N.E. 405; State v. Hardin, 34 N.J.L. 79; Winters et al. v. School District (Tex. Civ. App.) 208 S.W. 574; People v. Purdy, 72 Misc. 122, 130 N.Y.S. 1077, 130 N.Y.S. 1077; Bunkie Brick Works v. Police Jury, 113 La. 1062, 37 So. 970; Dodge v. Nevada Nat. Bank (C.C.A.) 109 F. 726. See also 27 Cyc. 769, 27 Am. & Eng. Law (2d Ed.) 662.

Appellants do not question the soundness of the general rule of law announced in the foregoing cases. They contend that the general rule has no application to personal property brought into this state after January 1st of any particular year. Such contention is founded upon the provisions of Laws Utah 1919, § 5921, heretofore quoted in this opinion. Appellants cite the following cases in support of their position: Nathan v. Spokane County, 35 Wash. 26, 76 P. 521, 65 L.R.A. 336, 102 Am. St. Rep. 888; Spaulding v. Adams County, 79 Wash. 193 140 P. 367, 368; Hammond Lumber Co. v. Smart, 129 La. 945, 57 So. 277, 38 L.R.A. (N.S.) 856; Griggsby Construction Co. v. Freeman, 108 La. 435, 32 So. 399, 58 L.R.A. 349. In the case of Griggsry Construction Co. v. Freeman, supra, it was held that a contractor's outfit consisting of mules, scrapers, etc., which were brought into Louisiana from another state to be used for the construction of a railroad bed were subject to taxation in Louisiana, and the fact that such property was taxed in another state could not affect the...