Farmers' Ins. Co. v. Linn Cnty.
| Decision Date | 11 May 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 36595.,36595. |
| Parties | FARMERS' INS. CO. v. LINN COUNTY ET AL. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Linn County; F. O. Ellison, Judge.
Mandamus to compel refund of alleged excessive sums collected for taxes for the years 1916 to 1920, inclusive, and to enjoin the collection of an alleged excess in the assessment for 1921. Decree for plaintiff except as to the years 1917 and 1919. Both parties appeal. Reversed on defendant's appeal. Affirmed on plaintiff's appeal.W. J. Barngrover, Co. Atty., of Cedar Rapids, for appellants.
Grimm, Wheeler & Elliott, of Cedar Rapids, for appellee.
Plaintiff's contention is that its stock should have been assessed for the 5-mill tax on the valuation under section 1310, Code Supplement 1913, instead of for the consolidated levy as provided by section 1305. Claim was also made in plaintiff's pleadings and evidence, though not pressed here, that all other property was persistently undervalued. Plaintiff demands a refund of the excess paid, and a cancellation of the excess for the year not paid. The par value of the stock of the plaintiff, Farmers' Insurance Company, 2,000 shares was $200,000. Of the 2,000 shares the president Smith held 1,370. Smith, the president, and Jenkins, the secretary, were the only active officers. The assessment roll for each year was stated on its face to be that of the Farmers' Insurance Company. The affidavit in each case purported to be that of the Farmers' Insurance Company, and except 1921, when it was signed by Jenkins, was signed by Smith. The affidavit was to the effect that the statement was correct of all moneys, credits, and liabilities and all taxable property that should be listed to affiant. No shareholder was named in the assessment roll. For each of the years 1916, 1917, 1918, 1919, 1920, Smith gave to the assessor a valuation of the stock of the company.
The formal reports required by section 1323, Code 1897, and section 1333a, Code Supplement 1913, appear not to have been requiredor furnished to the assessor. The assessor testified that Smith would have “the figures showing the risk, reserves, and one thing and another, and say, ‘That is what I have got,’ and give the estimated value of the stock as his idea of what it was worth.” Also, “I don't know as Mr. Smith furnished a statement of total risks, etc., but he would have some estimate in figures he would turn in.” The assessor took such valuations without further investigation, and entered on the personal property roll in the line for “corporate stocks and shares” (to which for 1916 and 1920 were added the words “and for stockholders” or words of similar import) a sum equal to 80 per cent. of the figures so given. In the personal property rolls for 1917 and 1919 these entries were made in the lines of the assessment roll for “actual value bank stock and other moneyed capital * * * less 20 per cent.” In the 1919 roll there was also added to the entry, “and for the individual stockholders.” The real estate was additionally valued in the odd-numbered years at $42,000 ($40,000 in 1921). The amounts were extended by the assessor upon his assessor's books. Only the one valuation, and in the one place referred to, was entered on the personal property roll.
Such assessed valuation for 1916 was $176,500; 1917, $178,500; 1918, $179,500; 1919, $183,000; 1920, $159,000; 1921, $199,000. In 1901 a decree in a suit by the company against the county had been entered without the introduction of evidence, fixing the value of the shares at $101.40 for the year 1900. The secretary testified that the later assessments were based on this valuation and the annual increase or diminution of surplus. In the roll for 1917, or on the copy left with the company, there was a lead pencil mark leading from the line for moneyed capital to the line for corporation stock. The receipts for the taxes on these assessments gave the tax value of the real estate and personalty separately, and in each case the valuation is obviously one-fourth of the returned valuation. For instance, the receipt for the first payment of the tax for 1916 recites, “Personal, valuation $44,125 (real estate described) $10, 500.” The receipts give the total tax in 1916, $5,595.05; 1917, $6,080.29; 1918, $5,759; 1919, $6,384.38; 1920, $6,558.75; 1921 (not paid) $7,761. These taxes were paid in semiannual installments.
Smith died in 1920. His 1,370 shares were appraised in September, 1921, for the inheritance tax at $458.90 per share, and the inheritance tax was paid on that basis. In 1921 all of the stock of the plaintiff company was sold to a company in New York City at $60 per share. Dividends of 10 per cent. were paid each year until 1920, when it was 12 per cent., and 1921, when none was paid. No objection to the method of taxation or to the taxes appears to have been made prior to March 7, 1922, on and after which objections and demands for refund and cancellations were made on the ground that the assessments should have been made at the 5-mill rate on the valuation of the shares besides the real estate tax. The court held that the rolls for 1917 and 1919 failed to show that plaintiff was assessed with any shares; that this might have been through an error of the assessing officer, and “that it is not such a matter as may be corrected or remedied in this proceeding.” A refund was decreed for the other years for which the taxes were paid, and cancellation for the excess above the 5-mill tax for 1921.
[1] Section 1333a, 1913 Supplement (28th G. A. c. 43), required the shares of stock of every insurance corporation to be assessed as provided in sections 1323, 1324, 1325, Code 1897, and as in that act provided. Section 1333c, Code Supp. 1913, provided for the assessment of moneys and credits of every domestic insurance company with certain exceptions. Section 1323 required the corporation to furnish to the assessor a verified and particularized statement, and in addition section 1333a required the furnishing of a copy of the annual report made to the auditor of state. By section 1324, if the assessor was not satisfied with the valuation so furnished, he might make one of his own. Formal statements were not furnished. Instead of complying with the law the company, through its executive officer (the stockholder individually most concerned), gave informal, estimated values, which the assessor accepted. These estimates were, we think, so given with the purpose that they should be accepted and plaintiff undoubtedly knew they were so accepted. They were all (exclusive of the real estate) valuations made on the personal property assessment roll.
[2] It is not shown that the duplicate rolls and assessments were not delivered to the company. Some of them were. It is presumed the law requiring their delivery was complied with. Plaintiff made no complaint, and did not appear before the board of review. The assessments assailed are not for a single year but for 6 years. Five of them were made on the reports and valuations given by Smith, the chief executive officer and the individual stockholder most deeply interested. Each year the taxes were paid and receipts given plainly showing the computation of tax for the consolidated levy upon one-fourth of the valuation. The receipt for the first year in controversy, 1916 for instance, gives the total value $54,625, consolidated tax, $5,599.05. Plaintiff would know at a glance that it was not assessed either on the valuation of $176,500 and $42,000 or at the 5-mill rate, which for the year 1916 would have made the tax on the personalty $882.50. The total tax paid for that year was $4,522.81. Plaintiff did not, under the management of Smith, nor did Smith on his own account, ever claim any error.
[3][4][5] It is argued that the error was not one of assessment or classification but of computation, with which...
To continue reading
Request your trial