Buchanan County v. State Tax Commission, 51680
| Decision Date | 14 November 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 51680,No. 2,51680,2 |
| Citation | 407 S.W.2d 910 |
| Parties | BUCHANAN COUNTY, Respondent, v. STATE TAX COMMISSION of Missouri, Hunter Phillips, Harold L. Love, and Ralph J. Hutchinson, members, Defendants, Crouch Brothers, Inc., Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Thomas A. Duty, Pros. Atty., Buchanan County, and W. H. Utz, Jr., of Smith, Utz, Litvak & Thackery, St. Joseph, for respondent.
Louis Kranitz, Theodore M. Kranitz, St. Joseph, for appellant.
STOCKARD, Commissioner.
In a proceeding pursuant to Civil Rule 100, V.A.M.R., for judicial review of the decision and order of the Missouri State Tax Commission (hereinafter referred to as the 'Commission'), the Circuit Court of Buchanan County remanded the case to the Commission with directions that certain evidence be received and considered by the Commission, and for a new decision then to be rendered. The affected taxpayer, Crouch Brothers, Inc. (hereafter referred to as 'Crouch Brothers') has appealed. This court has appellate jurisdiction because Buchanan County is a party, and also because the case involves the construction of the revenue laws of this state.
Section 137.095 RSMo 1959, V. A.M.S., 1 provides that all tangible personal property of business and manufacturing corporations 'shall be taxable in the county in which such property may be situated on the first day of January of the year for which such taxes may be assessed, and every business or manufacturing corporation having or owning tangible personal property on the first day of January in each year, which shall, on said date, be situated in any other county than the one in which said corporation is located, shall make return thereof to the assessor of such county or township where situated, in the same manner as other tangible personal property is required by law to be returned.'
Crouch Brothers is a corporation engaged in the trucking business and has its principal place of business in Buchanan County, Missouri. It made a timely return to the assessor of Buchanan County of its tangible personal property, and it listed thereon 64 items consisting of cars, trucks, tractors and semi-trailers. During 1964, apparently after June 1, the assessor of Buchanan County received from the Missouri Department of Revenue (furnished pursuant to Section 137.116 Cum.Supp.Mo.Rev.Stat., V.A.M.S. pocket parts) a list of motor vehicles and trailers registered with that department in the name of Crouch Brothers. This information was made available to the Buchanan County board of equalization, and either at the direction of the board or by act of the assessor (one of the fact issues in this case) the 239 vehicles belonging to Crouch Brothers were added to the tax assessment list on August 19, 1964. The assessor had no knowledge, and apparently the board of equalization made no effort to determine, whether any of these vehicles were physically present in Buchanan County on January 1, 1964. The president of Crouch Brothers testified before the Commission that none of the vehicles was in Buchanan County on January 1, 1964, and that all of the 239 vehicles were 'based' at places other than Buchanan County. After an appeal by Crouch Brothers to the Commission, and after a hearing, the Commission held that the additional assessment 'predicated upon the supplemental list of 239 motor vehicles added to the original assessment of (Crouch Brothers) is not supported by law and therefore (is) invalid and void.' It cannot be determined whether the Commission reached this result on the basis that the assessor purported to add the 239 vehicles to the assessment of Crouch Brothers after June 1, 1964, when he had no authority to do so, see Section 137.115, or on the basis that the 239 vehicles were not 'situated' in Buchanan County on January 1, 1964, or both. Findings of fact consistent with each basis were made. During the hearing before the Commission, counsel for Buchanan County sought to question the president of Crouch Brothers whether 'the personal taxes (have) been paid on any of these (239) vehicles in any other county,' but an objection was sustained on the ground that the only issue was 'whether or not, under the statutes, they should have been assessed' in Buchanan County.
The trial court held that the Commission erred in three particulars. 1. It had erroneously found that the assessor, and not the county board of equalization, had made the additional assessment. 2. The Commission refused to receive competent and relevant evidence, and for that reason its decision was arbitrary and capricious. 3. The Commission had erroneously defined the word 'situated' as used in Section 137.095 as meaning physically present.
Crouch Brothers first contends on this appeal that the trial court erred in ruling that 'the act of the assessor in making up his assessment was the act of the board of equalization.' It is the position of Crouch Brothers that pursuant to Section 137.115, the authority of the assessor to add omitted property to the tax list for 1964 expired after June 1, and for that reason the addition by him of the 239 items on August 19 was void and of no effect. The Commission found and declared that the assessor 'can proceed only at the time and in the manner prescribed by the statute,' citing Section 137.130, and that 'such a list must be made up between January 1st and June 1st,' citing Section 137.115. The Commission further found, as a fact, that 'none of the equipment comprising the additional assessment * * * was in Buchanan County on January 1, 1964.' There is no plainly stated finding that the additional assessment of the 239 vehicles was made by the assessor after June 1, but such a finding appears by implication.
The evidence discloses that the assessor received the list of additional 239 vehicles from the Department of Revenue, but the time he received the list is not shown. 'Sometime during the month of July,' the assessor 'made up a list' of the 239 vehicles and 'presented it' to the board of equalization. On August 19, 1964, a letter (which we set forth exactly as it appears in the transcript) was sent to Crouch Brothers from the Buchanan County Board of Equalization as follows:
Section 138.070 authorizes the county board of equalization 'to assess and equalize the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bi Go Markets, Inc. v. Morton
...82 S.Ct. at 1302. St. Louis County has a right to levy an ad valorem property tax on the aircraft. § 137.095; Buchanan County v. State Tax Comm'n, 407 S.W.2d 910, 914 (Mo.1966). The question is whether the County's tax must be apportioned. Determination of whether the County can levy an una......
-
State ex rel. Leggett v. Sovran Leasing Corp.
...of these issues because they were not raised by appellant and because the barges were not situated in Missouri. See Buchanan v. State Tax Comm'n., 407 S.W.2d 910, 914 (Mo. banc 1966). Neither were the barges located in Missouri on January 1 of 1992 or 1993. The facts of this case do not pre......
-
Peabody Coal Co. v. State Tax Com'n
...or township assessors, shall be assessed and taxed in the county in which the property is situated.... In Buchanan County v. State Tax Commission, 407 S.W.2d 910, 914 (Mo.1966) we held that the word "situated" in the above-cited statute "refers to the place where the personal property is re......
-
Mesa Leasing Ltd. v. City of Burlington
...property may be taxed only by towns in which the property is physically located on that particular day. See Buchanan County v. State Tax Comm'n, 407 S.W.2d 910, 914 (Mo.1966) (statute providing that personal property shall be taxed in county where property is "situated" on stated day "is no......