City of Tampa v. Palmer
| Decision Date | 08 June 1925 |
| Parties | CITY OF TAMPA v. PALMER et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied July 15, 1925.
En Banc.
Suit by the City of Tampa against Ruby B. Palmer and husband. From final decree dismissing bill of complaint, complainant appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Syllabus by the Court
Burden of proof is on party assailing good faith of tax officers and validity of their official actions. The good faith of tax officers and the validity of their official actions are presumed; and, when assailed, the burden of proof is upon the complaining party.
Tax assesser in valuation of property has wide discretion; in absence of fraud, illegal act, or abuse of discretion, courts will generally not control discretion of tax assessor in valuing property. The law contemplates that a wide discretion be accorded to the tax assessor in the valuation of property for purposes of taxation. In the absence of a clear and positive showing of fraud or of an illegal act or of an abuse of discretion rendering an assessment authorized by law so arbitrary or discriminating as to amount to a fraud upon a taxpayer, or to a denial of the equal protection of the law the courts will not in general control the discretion of the tax assessor in making valuations for purposes of taxation.
When equity will grant relief against excessive tax levy, stated. Where a tax assessor, in fixing valuations for purposes of taxation, arbitrarily, systematically, and intentionally follows a method of excessive valuation, without reference to actual or relative values; or where the valuation is determined in an arbitrary and illegal manner resulting in an unjust and excessive valuation amounting to a fraud upon the rights of the taxpayer; or where there has been a violation of or omission to follow the mandatory requirements of law or where the valuation is so palpably excessive and unjust as of itself to amount to a denial of the equal protection of the law of a denial of due process--equity will usually take jurisdiction and grant appropriate relief in proper cases against an excessive tax so levied, even though the proceedings authorized by law for seeking relief from administrative officers were not utilized. Equity takes jurisdiction in such cases, not for the purpose of controlling the bona fide exercise of the administrative discretion vested in the tax assessor, but to prevent the fraud resulting from the intentional abuse of that discretion.
Equity will not in general control discretion of tax assessor in valuing property, or of board of equalization in equalizing value, unless it is illegally or fraudulently exercised so as to amount to fraud. The fixing of a valuation upon property by a tax assessor for purposes of taxation, and the equalization thereof by a board of equalization, are administrative acts, involving the exercise of administrative discretion, and a court of equity will not in general control that discretion unless it is illegally or fraudulently exercised, or is exerted in such manner or under such circumstances as will amount in law to a fraud.
Equity will not grant relief solely on ground that valuation for taxation is excessive, unless it is so excessive as to amount to fraud and to show arbitrary discrimination. Mere inadvertence, or a bona fide mistake of judgment, in fixing a valuation for purposes of taxation, does not, in itself amount in law to a frand, and relief will not be granted by courts of equity solely upon the ground that the valuation is excessive, unless such valuation is so obviously and flagrantly excessive as to amount in law to a fraud and clearly imputes to the tax assessor an intention to arbitrarily discriminate against the complaining taxpayer.
Remedy for excessive valuation resulting from mistake in judgment by tax assessor is before administrative body provided for equalization of assessments. In instances of complaints founded solely upon a claim of excessive valuation resulting from a bona fide, but mistaken, exercise of judgment by the tax assessor, and unaffected by any obvious and palpable abuse of discretion or other element of illegality in matter of law, the remedy of the taxpayer is before the administrative body provided for the equalization of valuations and assessments.
For equity to grant relief against ad valorem tax on real property, case must be brought within principles of equity jurisdiction; claim of excessive valuation resulting solely from bona fide but mistaken exercise of judgment of tax assessor will not secure relief in equity, unless valuation is so excessive as to amount to fraud and shows arbitrary discrimination. In order for equity to take jurisdiction and grant relief against an ad valorem tax imposed upon real property, the case must be brought within some recognized principle of equity jurisdiction. A claim of excessive valuation alone, resulting solely from a bona fide, but mistaken exercise of judgment, the validity of the tax being effected by no other element of illegality in matter of law, and there being no intentional or other disregard of law or abuse of authority, will not suffice as a ground of equitable jurisdiction, unless the valuation is so flagrantly and obviously excessive as, within itself, to amount to a fraud and clearly imputes to the tax assessor an intention to arbitrarily discriminate against the complaining taxpayer.
If valuation placed on property by assessor is excessive, presumption is that board of equalization will correct it. Where the valuation placed upon property by the tax assessor is in fact excessive, the presumption is that the board of equalization will correct it, if application be timely made.
Mere presence of money on deposit in bank does not necessarily render it subject to taxation there. When considered with reference to taxation, money is transitory property, and its mere presence on deposit in banks does not necessarily render it subject to taxation there.
Erroneously making assessment of certain class of personal property alone held not to invalidate lawful assessment against other classes of property lawfully assessed. Although the assessment upon a certain class of personal property may have been erroneously made, under the bona fide, but mistaken, belief of the tax assessor that it has been properly assessed as provided by law, that circumstance, standing alone, will not necessarily invalidate the assessment against other classes of property, lawfully assessed, particularly where it is not shown that the tax assessor's failure to properly assess the first-mentioned class has affected the complaining taxpayer otherwise or differently than other taxpayers similarly situated, or placed upon him any greater burden than upon others. Appeal from Circuit Court, Hillsborough County; F. M. Robles, judge.
Hilton S. Hampton and Sandford & Hampton, all of Tampa, and Myers & Myers, of Tallahassee, for appellant.
W. B. Dickenson, of Tampa, for appellees.
Appellant, the city of Tampa, as complainant below, brought its bill of complaint against appellees for the purpose of enforcing the payment of certain taxes levied by said city against property standing in the name of Ruby B. Palmer, described as the south 10 feet of lot 8, block 3, and all of lot 9, block 3, of Kennedy's Subdivision, Tampa Heights, situate at the northeast corner of Florida and Palm avenues in the city of Tampa. The bill, as amended, alleges in substance the yearly assessment of city taxes against said property for the years 1916 to 1920, both inclusive, the failure of appellees to pay the same within the time prescribed by law, and the due certification thereof by the city tax collector to the city attorney for collection by the latter in accordance with the charter provisions of the city of Tampa. The bill prays for an accounting and a lien upon said property in amount of the unpaid taxes, a sale of said property, if necessary, to pay the amount of said lien, and for other relief customarily incident to the enforcement of such a lien.
By joint answer, the appellees admit their ownership of the property as well as the assessment and nonpayment of the taxes. Appellees further aver, however, that they have not paid said taxes because they deem the assessment thereof to be contrary, in several respects, to the principles of equality and uniformity of taxation prescribed by the Constitution of the State of Florida. The principal points of attack made upon said assessments by the appellees in their answer, briefly stated, are as follows:
(a) That the assessed valuations of said property for the years in question are 'grossly' in excess of both the actual and relative value thereof.
(b) That said assessments have been arbitrarily made by appellant, 'without any adequate investigation and view of said property to ascertain its actual value.'
(c) That, upon the information and belief of appellees, 'vast quantities' of personal property located in the city of Tampa has not been assessed by appellant during the tax years in question.
(d) That 'vast sums' of money on deposit with individuals and corporations, amounting to millions of dollars, has not been assessed by appellant for any purpose whatever during said tax years, 'although the same was subject to tax.'
In support of the averments of inequality and lack of uniformity in respect to the valuation of appellees' property, the answer further avers that the dwelling house situate thereon has depreciated at least 50 per cent. since it was built, and 'is now not actually worth the amount of money for which the same is assessed,' and further that said dwelling house 'is assessed in a sum 'grossly' in excess of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Roberts v. American Nat. Bank of Pensacola
...as to value, there appears prejudicial and material error in matters of law,' and constitutes grounds for equitable interference. City of Tampa v. Palmer, supra. If assessors can deliberately disregard the law and knowingly omit from the assessment rolls property subject to taxation and sub......
-
Lee v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
... ... O'Kelley, Jr., all of Tallahassee, for appellants ... John B ... Sutton, of Tampa, and G. A. K. Sutton and Thos. B. Adams, ... both of Jacksonville, for appellee ... Farms Co. v. Westchester County, 261 U.S. 155, 43 S.Ct ... 261, 67 L.Ed. 585; Hancock v. City of Muskogee, 250 ... U.S. 454, 39 S.Ct. 528, 63 L.Ed. 1081. But here in fact the ... appellant ... See State ex rel. Havana State Bank ... v. Rodes, supra; City of Tampa v. Palmer, 89 Fla ... 514, 105 So. 115, Folsom et al. v. Bank of ... Greenwood, 97 Fla. 426, 120 So ... ...
-
Weber v. City of Helena
...20 N. D. 372, 127 N. W. 95), and has no application where there was no attempt to comply with the statutes. Thus, in City of Tampa v. Palmer, 89 Fla. 514, 105 So. 115, it was held that the word “irregularity” is not synonymous with either the words “illegal” or “unlawful,” and that it “cont......
-
Colonial Inv. Co. v. Nolan
... ... subjects expressed in the title. Judson v. City of ... Bessemer, 87 Ala. 240, 6 So. 267, 4 L. R. A. 742 ... Without deciding this question, the ... purpose.' Sparkman v. State, 71 Fla. 210, 71 So ... 34, 38; Graham v. City of West Tampa, 71 Fla. 605, ... 71 So. 926 ... While ... it is uniformly held that mere errors of ... U.S. 350, 38 S.Ct. 495, 62 L.Ed. 1154; City of Tampa v ... Palmer, 89 Fla. 514, 105 So. 115 ... 'Uniformity ... and equality of rate and just valuation ... ...