Chastain's, Inc. v. State Tax Commission

• Decision Date: 19 February 1952
• Docket Number: No. 7820,7820
• Citation: 241 P.2d 167,72 Idaho 344
• Parties: CHASTAIN'S, Inc. v. STATE TAX COMMISSION et al.
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

Page 167

241 P.2d 167

72 Idaho 344

CHASTAIN'S, Inc. v. STATE TAX COMMISSION et al.

No. 7820.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

Feb. 19, 1952.

Russell S. Randall, Paul W. Hyatt, Lewiston, for plaintiff.

Robert E. Smylie, Atty. Gen., J. N. Legat, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendants.

THOMAS, Justice.

This is an original proceedings in this court for writ of prohibition.

The application and petition for writ sets out substantially the beneficial interest in the subject matter of the action by the plaintiff, and then generally, among other things, avers:

(a) That for the tax year of 1951 the assessor of Nez Perce County, Idaho, determined the full cash value of all the taxable property in said county;

(b) That the assessor assessed merchandise, machinery and furniture and fixtures of the plaintiff and all others in said county for tax purposes at 30% of the full cash value;

(c) That the assessor assessed all other taxable property in said county for the year 1951 for tax purposes at 23% of the full cash value;

(d) That thereafter plaintiff, together with more than 100 other owners of merchandise, machinery, and furniture and fixtures who were likewise situated, objected to the assessment of such three items of property at 30% of full cash value and filed such protest with the board of county commissioners sitting as a board of equalization;

(e) That said county board of equalization found that no other items of property assessed by the county assessor were assessed in excess of 23% of its full cash value and that in order to equalize the assessment of such items of property with other items of property in said county, it was necessary to and the said board of equalization did reduce the assessment of merchandise, machinery, and furniture and fixtures to 23% of its full cash value;

(f) That the auditor prepared abstracts of the amount and value of each and all the items of property as determined by the board and transmitted the same to the tax commission of the State of Idaho;

(g) That the tax commission, sitting as a state board of equalization increased the assessment of merchandise, machinery, and furniture and fixtures in said county by 30% of the aggregate of each such item on the ground that in its opinion the value of these three items is not uniform of equal as compared with the same items of property in other counties, thereby increasing each of said three items for tax purposes from 23% to 29.9% of the full cash value;

(h) That the plaintiff and all those in said county similarly situated will be compelled to pay a greater proportion of the tax of said county than will other property owners in said county who own different items of property.

The proceedings and action on the part of the said state tax commission is challenged on the ground and for the reason that said increase in assessed valuation of such items of property by the state tax commission is without authority of law and wholly in excess of the jurisdiction of said commission.

Upon said application an alternative writ of prohibition and order to show cause were issued, to which the defendant filed an answer and then filed a motion to quash upon the ground and for the reason that the application failed to state any or sufficient facts entitling plaintiff to the relief prayed for or to any relief. The answer was later withdrawn. The matter is before this court on the petition and motion to quash.

The motion to quash admits the truth of the well pleaded allegations of the application for the writ and is directed to the proposition that such allegations do not warrant the relief sought. Parsons v. Diefendorf, 53 Idaho 219, 23 P.2d 236.

It is a presumption, liberally applied, that the county board of equalization did its duty and equalized the valuation of all property in Nez Perce County, Idaho, Anderson's Red & White Store v. Kootenai County, 70 Idaho 260, 215 P.2d 815; furthermore, under the pleadings, it must be taken as a fact that the county assessor ditermined the full cash value of all taxable property in said county for the year 1951 subject to assessment by said county assessor, and that determination is not challenged by the state tax commission and is not now before us; it must likewise be taken as a fact that the county board of equalization equalized said property in said county, not at full cash value, but at 23% of full cash value; it must be further admitted as a fact, under the pleadings that the state board of equalization raised the assessed valuation of merchandise, machinery, and furniture and fixtures in Nez Perce County, but no other taxable property therein, from 23% of full cash value to 29.9% of full cash value after the county board had equalized the valuation of all such property in the county at 23% of full cash value; it is further admitted by the pleadings that the plaintiff and all those in said county similarly situated will be compelled by the acts of the state tax commission to pay a greater proportion of the taxes in said county than will other property owners owning other items of taxable property in said county.

The Constitution requires that for tax purposes the ad valorem tax must be uniform and on the same basis of valuation as other property within the county, and if this requirement of uniformity has not been attained and retained, then the mandate of Article VII, Sections 2 and 5 of the Constitution, has been violated. Anderson's Red & White Store v. Kootenai County, supra. Uniformity in taxing implies equality in the burden of taxation and this equality of burden cannot exist without uniformity in the mode of assessment as well as in the rate of tax, Cummings v. Merchants' Nat. Bank of Toledo, 101 U.S. 153, 25 L.Ed. 903; Washington Water Power Co. v. Kootenai County, 9 Cir., 270 F. 369; Birch v. Orange County, 186 Cal. 736, 200 P. 647; Gilman v. City of Sheboygan, 2 Black 510, 67 U.S. 510, 17 L.Ed. 305; again, the requirement that all property be assessed at its actual cash value is secondary to the constitutional mandate of equality of taxation. Washington County v. First Nat. Bank, 35 Idaho 438, 206 P. 1054. The results of the action of the state tax commission as admitted by the pleadings offends the provisions of Article VII, Sections 2 and 5 of the Constitution, requiring uniformity of taxation.

It is contended by the state tax commission that its action is authorized under Article VII, Section 12 of the Constitution and Section 63-605, I.C. Article VII, Section 12 in pertinent part, provides as follows: 'There shall be a state tax commission * * *. The duties heretofore imposed upon the state board of equalization by the Constitution and laws of this state shall be performed by the state tax commission and said commission shall...