City of Ardmore v. State ex rel. Okla. Tax Comm'n
Decision Date | 10 April 1934 |
Docket Number | Case Number: 24029 |
Citation | 32 P.2d 728,168 Okla. 316,1934 OK 224 |
Parties | CITY OF ARDMORE v. STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA TAX COMMISSION. |
Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. Licenses--Constitutional Exemptions Held not Applicable to Excise Tax.
Section 6, art. 10, of the Constitution applies to a property tax and has no application to an excise tax.
2. Same-Gasoline Consumed by Municipality Held not Exempt From Excise Tax.
Gasoline purchased and used by a municipality is not exempt from the gasoline excise tax levied by the provisions of section 12527, O. S. 1931 (sec. 1, ch. 278, S. L. 1929, amending sec. 1, ch. 198, S. L. 1925, sec. 1, ch. 101, S. L. 192324, sec. 1, ch. 239, S. L. 1923).
Application to File Second Petition for Rehearing Denied May 22, 1934.
Appeal from District Court, Carter County; Asa E. Walden, Judge.
Action by the State on relation of the Oklahoma Tax Commission against the City of Ardmore. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Williams & Williams and J. E. Williams, for plaintiff in error.
C. W. King, Claud Hendon, L. G. Harries, A. L. Herr, J. Berry King, Atty. Gen., and Randell S. Cobb, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.
J. H. Hill, John R. Ramsey, B. W. Griffith, Sol H. Kaufman, J. W. Finley, Warren T. Spies, Hayes McCoy, Harlan T. Deupree, A. P. Van Meter, and For rester Brewster, amici curiae.
¶1 This action was brought by the State of Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Tax Commission against the city of Ardmore in the district court of Carter county, wherein, under the provisions of section 12527, O. S. 1931, the state sought to recover an amount alleged to be due by reason of the failure of the city of Ardmore to pay the gasoline tax on a carload of gasoline purchased by the city and delivered to it through interstate commerce, which had been used by the city in the operation of its fire, police, and other municipal departments. The trial court found that the city was liable for the payment of said tax, and from the judgment of the trial court, the city has appealed. The parties will be referred to as they appeared in the trial court.
¶2 The contention of the defendant is that the statutes which purport to levy an excise tax on gasoline against municipalities contravene the provisions of section 6, art. 10 of the Constitution, which provides that all property of municipalities of this state shall be exempt from taxation.
¶3 The principal issue before the court is whether or not the Legislature has levied an excise tax on gasoline consumed by municipal corporations in this state, and if so, does said act or acts contravene the provisions of the Constitution? These two issues are so allied that we shall discuss them together.
¶4 In construing a statute the general rule is that the intent of the Legislature, when ascertained, must govern. McCarter v. State ex rel. Pitman, 82 Okla. 78, 198 P. 303. In ascertaining such intention the court may look to each part of the statute, to other statutes upon the same or relative subjects, to the evils and mischiefs to be remedied, and to the natural or absurd consequences of any particular interpretation. Blevins v. W. A. Graham Co., 72 Okla. 308, 182 P. 247. Not only must the whole statute and every part of it be considered, but where there are several statutes in pari materia, they fire all, whether referred to or not, to be taken together and one part construed with another in the construction of any material provision. DeGraffenreid v. Iowa Land & Trust Co., 20 Okla. 687, 95 P. 624. If the language used by the Legislature conveys a definite meaning which involves no absurdity, nor any contradiction of any other parts of the statute, then that meaning apparent on the face of the statute must be accepted. Falter v. Walker, 47 Okla. 527, 149 P. 1111. Subsequent legislative enactments may be resorted to as an aid in the interpretation of prior legislation upon the same subject. State ex rel. Freeling, Atty. Gen., v. Howard, 67 Okla. 296, 171 P. 41.
¶5 Bearing in mind the above principles of statutory interpretation, let us turn to the statute under consideration, and to kindred statutes dealing with the same general subject, and analyze their various provisions.
¶6 Section 12527, O. S. 1931 (sec. 1, ch. 278, S. L. 1929), provides, in part:
"There is hereby levied an excise tax of four cents (4c) per gallon on each and every gallon of gasoline consumed in the state of Oklahoma, to be reported and collected as hereinafter provided. * * *"
¶7 The above statute amended section 1, ch. 198, S. L. 1925, which was an amendment of section 1, ch. 101, S. L. 1923-24, which amended section 1, ch. 239, S. L. 1923. The 1923 Act provided:
¶8 It is made certain by the above-quoted provisions that the Legislature intended that the "consignee" should pay a tax on all gasoline subject to inspection "as now required by law." By reference to section 11588, O. S. 1931 (sec. 1, ch. 96, S. L. 1915), we learn what gasoline was and is subject to inspection:
"All oil and liquid products of petroleum known as burning oil, or kerosene, and gasoline, by whatever name called, which may or can be used for illuminating, heating or power purposes, manufactured in this state or brought into it, shall be inspected by an authorized inspector of this state before the same are consumed, used or sold or offered to be sold, or disposed of to merchants, consumers, or other persons within the state."
¶9 Section 2 of the 1923 Act, supra, was amended by the 1929 Act, appearing as section 12528, O. S. 1931, the pertinent provisions thereof being:
"* * * And the term 'consignee' or 'wholesale distributor' shall mean the person, firm or corporation immediately receiving gasoline subject to inspection as now required by law, and manufacturers and producers who sell or deliver gasoline in quantities less than carload lots."
¶10 The legislative intent has been clearly manifested, therefore, to levy an excise tax on all gasoline "subject to inspection as now required by law" and "all oil and liquid products, * * * shall be inspected * * * before the same are consumed, used or sold. * * *"
¶11 Section 35, O. S. 1931, adopted in 1890, provides:
"The word 'persons,' except when used by way of contrast, includes not only human beings, but bodies politic or corporate."
¶12 The Legislature intended that all gasoline used or consumed in this state should be inspected and upon all inspected gasoline the Legislature levied a tax. The sole specific exemption is provided by section 12545, O. S. 1931 (ch. 280, S. L. 1929), relating to gasoline used for operating farm tractors or stationary engines.
¶13 In 1931 the Legislature enacted chapter 66, art. 9, S. L. 1981, providing means and methods of enforcing the collection of the taxes theretofore levied. Section 2 provides in part as follows:
"'Person' shall mean and include persons, firms, partnerships, companies, corporations, associations, receivers, common-law trusts, statutory trusts and other concerns, by whatever name known or howsoever organized, formed or created, including cities, towns, counties townships, and other political subdivisions of the state."
¶14 Subdivision h of section 25 of said act provides as follows:
"In case any city, town, county, township, or other political subdivision of the stale shall fail or refuse to pay the excise tax, or any part thereof, on motor fuel subject to tax, when due, the Oklahoma Tax Commission shall issue a tax Warrant for the amount of excise tax due, just as in the case of the delinquency of any other delinquent taxpayer who fails or refuses to pay the excise tax on gasoline or motor fuel; and the sheriff shall serve such warrant on the county treasurer, and, from the date of such service, the same shall be a lien on all ad valorem tax penalties collected by said treasurer for and on account of any such city, town, county, township or other political subdivision of the state, until the amount of all delinquent excise tax, due by any such party, is paid; and the county treasurer is hereby directed and required to remit the amount of all such ad valorem tax penalties, when collected by him, to the Oklahoma Tax Commission, until the amount due the state of Oklahoma, by any such city, town,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Boswell v. State
... 74 P.2d 940 181 Okla. 435, 1937 OK 727 BOSWELL v. STATE et al. No. 27935 ... of Oklahoma City, for plaintiff A. V. Boswell ... Hugh ... McMillan, 12 N.D. 280, 96 N.W. 310; ... State ex rel. University of Utah v. Candland, 36 ... Utah 406, 104 P ... This court recently held ... in City of Ardmore v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Tax ... Commission, 168 Okl ... ...
-
Boswell v. State, Case Number: 27935
...have meant but one thing - a debt payable by a general property tax. This court recently held in City of Ardmore v. State ex. rel. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 168 Okla. 316, 32 P.2d 728, that the excise tax on gasoline is not a property tax. ¶2 I think this court, in the recent case of Baker v......
-
In re City of Enid
...to the sale price of tickets, passes, admissions, fees or dues of like kind or character." ¶9 In the case of City of Ardmore v. State ex rel., 168 Okla. 316, 32 P.2d 728, it was held that section 6, art. 10, of the Constitution applies to a property tax and has no application to an excise t......
-
In re City of Enid
...158 P.2d 348 195 Okla. 365, 1945 OK 135 In re CITY OF ENID. No. 30353.Supreme ... within the State of Oklahoma; and a like tax upon the gross ... proceeds of ... In the ... case of City of Ardmore v. State ex rel. 168 Okl ... 316, 32 P.2d 728, it was ... ...