Clark v. Seiber
| Decision Date | 26 April 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 33671,33671 |
| Citation | 48 Wn.2d 783,296 P.2d 680 |
| Parties | Cecil C. CLARK and Catherine Clark, husband and wife, Summitview Court, Inc., a corporation, and ST. Helens Court, Inc., a corporation, Appellants, v. Jake SEIBER, as Yakima County Assessor, C. S. Cole, as Yakima County Treasurer, Harold Purdin, as Yakima County Auditor, and Yakima School Districts 2, 7, 8, 24, 33, 88, 90, 108, 115, 119, 120, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 207, 208, Jt. 3 and Jt. 116/200 of Yakima County, Washington, Respondents, The State of Washington, Intervener-Respondent. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Halverson & Applegate, Alan A. McDonald, Yakima, for appellants.
Don J. Clark, Yakima, for respondents.
Don Eastvold, Atty. Gen., G. Keith Grim, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent-intervener.
This is an action by certain property owners of Yakima county challenging the constitutionality of chapter 253, Laws of 1955, p. 1035, generally referred to as the Ryder Act, and seeking to enjoin the collection of taxes raised by levies based upon assessed valuations provided by that act to be the basis for school district taxes.
Two different assessed valuations have heretofore been recognized in this state as the basis for the imposition of ad valorem taxes, one for the levy of state taxes and the other for local taxes. The assessed valuation which must be used for local taxes, i. e., for levies made by local authorities for local purposes, is fixed by the county assessor and county board of equalization. State ex rel. State Tax Comm. v. Redd, 1932, 166 Wash. 132, 6 P.2d 619. The other is that used for state tax levies and is arrived at by the state board of equalization, which equalizes the figures certified to it by the assessors of the various counties to the end that the valuation in each county will conform to the determination of the constitution that it be 'fifty per centum of the true and fair value of such property in money: * * *.' Constitution, Amendment 17. (This same standard, of course, guides the county assessors in their work.) That this equalized valuation might be used as the basis for the levy of state taxes was determined by State ex rel. Showalter v. Cook, 1933, 175 Wash. 364, 27 P.2d 1075.
The assessed valuation of the taxable property in Yakima county (other than public utilities, etc.) on January 1, 1955, as certified by the county assessor, was $92,508,500. As determined by the state board of equalization, it was $125,011,486, over thirty-five per cent more than that established by the local authorities.
Chapter 253, Laws of 1955, authorizes all tax levies made by or for any school district to be based upon the equalized valuation of the taxable property within the district as determined by the state board of equalization, on the theory that such levies are for a state purpose.
Plaintiffs contend that chapter 253, Laws of 1955, is unconstitutional for various reasons; and they allege that the use of the equalized valuation as determined by the state board of equalization has resulted in an increase of $336.86 in taxes on their property in Yakima county over what the tax would be had it been levied on the basis of the assessed valuation as certified by the county assessor. The trial court sustained a demurrer to their complaint and dismissed their action. The plaintiffs appeal.
We shall consider first the appellants' contention that a school district tax is a local tax for a local purpose, and that, as heretofore determined by this court in State ex rel. State Tax Comm. v. Redd, supra, the tax must, under the provisions of Art. XI, § 12 of the state constitution, be levied on the assessed valuation as certified by the county assessor.
The respondents seek to avoid the holding of the Redd case that levies for local taxes for local purposes cannot be based upon the valuation as equalized by the state board of equalization by reasoning which can be expressed in the following syllogism based upon the holdings of this court. Major premise: Property valuations as equalized by the state board of equalization may be used as the basis for state tax levies. State ex rel. Showalter v. Cook, supra. Minor premise: All taxes levied by or for school districts, although local taxes, are for state purposes. Newman v. Schlarb, 1935, 184 Wash. 147, 50 P.2d 36. Conclusion: Property valuations as equalized by the state board of equalization may be used for the levying of taxes by or for school districts.
The conclusion is patently a non sequitur. From the fact that a state tax can be levied upon property valuations as equalized by the state board of equalization, it does not follow that a local tax for a state purpose may be so levied.
However, we do not base our conclusion that chapter 253, Laws of 1955, is unconstitutional on any syllogistic weakness. To put the respondents on the strongest possible ground, we will assume but not concede that a local tax levy for a state purpose may be based on the assessed valuation of the property within the district as equalized by our state board of equalization. Having made that assumption, our position is that there is no support, in fact or in any opinion of this court, for the proposition stated in the minor premise, that all taxes levied by or for school districts are for state purposes.
Newman v. Schlarb, supra, strongly relied upon by the respondents, is not authority for any such proposition. We there held that, when the state directed the counties to levy a tax sufficient to produce five cents per day for each pupil in attendance in the common schools during the preceding year, the tax levied in conformity therewith was for a state purpose. It is to be noted that no question of assessed valuation was before the court; we were concerned only with a mandate to raise a specific amount of money. Whether the revenue was to be raised by a low millage on a high valuation or by a high millage on a low valuation was immaterial--the amount to be raised was definite and certain, or could be made so, and was determined by the state.
We attempt no distinction between the county involved in Newman v. Schlarb, supra, and the school district involved in the present case. We agree (assuming always, as pointed out in Newman v. Schlarb, that there is a local benefit to justify a tax on a local district or subdivision for a state purpose) that, if the state can require a county to raise a certain amount for a state purpose, it can require a school district to raise a certain amount for a state purpose. That is not the situation in the present case.
The legislature, in chapter 253 of the Laws of 1955, has for the first time said (a) that, regardless of who determines the amount, all taxes levied by a school district are for a state purpose, and (b) that a local tax (it being for a state purpose) can be raised by a levy based on the assessed valuation of property within the district as equalized by the state board of equalization. (We have heretofore indicated that we will assume but not concede (b).)
We direct our consideration to proposition (a).
Heretofore, any local tax that the court has declared to be for a state purpose has been in an amount fixed by the state through its legislature as (1) requiring a county to levy a sufficient tax to raise an amount equivalent to ten dollars for each child of school age in the county, Laws of 1909, chapter 97, title 3, subchapter 9, § 5, p. 322, Rem.Rev.Stat. § 4936 (); (2) requiring a county to levy a tax sufficient to raise an amount equivalent to five cents per day for each pupil in attendance in the common schools of the county, Laws of 1933, chapter 28, § 12, p. 171; Rem.Rev.Stat. (Sup.), § 4936.
The amount of the tax to be levied by or for the school districts within the contemplation of chapter 253, Laws of 1955, will be fixed not by the state but by the directors of the various school districts, and frequently on the basis of millages specifically approved by the voters of the district. The amounts raised will vary from district. The district, as will the millages required to raise those amounts. In the absence of any mandate by the state as to the amount to be raised (which was the basis for the decision in Newman v. Schlarb, supra), a requisite for a tax for a state purpose is missing and we are dealing only with a local tax for a local purpose.
Further analysis discloses that, apart from the fact that the state has not fixed the amount of the tax to be levied on behalf of the school districts, substantial portions of the taxes levied by or for school districts are local taxes for predominantly local purposes. To the extent that any discretion is vested in school districts as to what taxes shall be levied and where and how expenditures are to be made, there is local control and autonomy. The taxes that will be raised by levies based on the assessed valuation as provided for in chapter 253 are definitely local in the sense that they cannot be expended outside of the district in which they are raised, either for the benefit of the state or for the benefit of some other district. The state cannot control the amount of a school district budget or, except by certain millage limits, the millage levied to raise the amount of that budget. Nor will the state control the way in which the tax money will be spent, within certain limitations. The state exercises certain controls, such as minimum salary provisions and the requirement that the schools within the district must meet certain minimal educational standards. A very effective but indirect control is made possible by insistence that certain specific requirements must be met before state funds will be available for building and perhaps for other purposes.
Enough has been and will be said to make clear that some...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. O'Connell v. Slavin
...declarations contained therein. Later cases so holding are Jensen v. Henneford, 185 Wash. 209, 53 P.2d 607 (1936), and Clark v. Seiber, 48 Wash.2d 783, 296 P.2d 680 (1956). As we said in both of these cases, the legislative body cannot change the real nature and purpose of an act by giving ......
-
Sator v. State Dept. of Revenue
...Hoppe, 82 Wash.2d 549, 512 P.2d 1094 (1973). But compare Carkonen v. Williams, 76 Wash.2d 617, 458 P.2d 280 (1969). In Clark v. Seiber, 48 Wash.2d 783, 296 P.2d 680 (1956), a statute "requiring school district tax levies to be imposed upon property valuations as determined by county assesso......
-
Washington State Dept. of Revenue v. Hoppe
...by prior decision of this court, the state's equalized values cannot be used for the levy of local purpose taxes. Clark v. Seiber, 48 Wash.2d 783, 296 P.2d 680 (1956). valuation is limited to implementation of the state statutory property tax levy. RCW It follows that the state's position i......
-
Moses Lake School Dist. No. 161 v. Big Bend Community College
...thereof, for county, city, town, or other municipal purposes . . . In support of this proposition, plaintiff cites Clark v. Seiber, 48 Wash.2d 783, 296 P.2d 680 (1956) and State ex rel. Latimer v. Henry, 28 Wash. 38, 68 P. 368 Plaintiff's position is not well taken. RCW 28B.50.600 and its r......