First State Bank of Bernalillo v. State

• Decision Date: 25 February 1921
• Docket Number: No. 2521.,2521.
• Citation: 27 N.M. 78,196 P. 743
• Parties: FIRST STATE BANK OF BERNALILLOv.STATE.
• Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

27 N.M. 78

196 P. 743

FIRST STATE BANK OF BERNALILLO

v.STATE.

No. 2521.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Feb. 25, 1921.

Syllabus by the Court.

Where taxes are assessed against a corporation owning real and personal property for the year 1919, the fact that it winds up its affairs and ceases to do business on March 10, 1919, does not entitle the district court, under Code 1915, § 5475, to abate that portion of its taxes on its personal property from March 10th to the end of the year, and to fix and determine the amount of taxes due on its real estate for the year in question.

The phrases in the statute “any errors of other kinds by which any injustice may be done any taxpayer,” and “any taxpayer complaining of such injustice may submit his complaint,” etc., refer only to errors appearing in the assessment book by which injustice is done the taxpayer. Bond-Dillon Co. v. Matson, Treasurer, 196 Pac. 323, followed.

Appeal from District Court, Sandoval County; Hickey, Judge.

Proceedings by the First State Bank of Bernalillo for abatement of taxes. Judgment for plaintiff, and the State appeals. Reversed and remanded, with instructions to dismiss.

See, also, 193 Pac. 73.

The phrases in Code 1915, § 5475, providing for abatement of taxes for “any errors of other kinds by which any injustice may be done any taxpayer,” and “any taxpayer complaining of such injustice may submit his complaint,” refer only to errors appearing in the assessment book by which injustice is done the taxpayer.

John Venable, of Albuquerque, and O. O. Askren, Atty. Gen., for the State.

RAYNOLDS, J.

This is an appeal by the State Tax Commission from a judgment of the district court of Sandoval county abating the taxes of the appellee, the First State Bank of Bernalillo, for the year 1919. The appellee by its counsel on April 5, 1920, filed its petition addressed to the district attorney and presented it to the court on May 5, 1920. No evidence was taken by the court, nor offered by the appellee. After an order had been entered granting the relief prayed for, to which order appellant objected and excepted, an appeal was taken to this court.

Petition of the appellee bank alleged, in substance, that an injustice had been done it in the assessment against it for the year 1919; that it had returned its capital stock for assessment and taxation for that year at $25,000 and “the banking house and premises, in which the business of the said bank was conducted, and in which a part of the capital stock of said bank was invested”; that it had liquidated its affairs and ceased to operate on March 10, 1919; that the value of said building and premises, in which part of the capital stock is invested is $5,000. The petition further states that the corporation should pay taxes on its capital stock from January 1, 1919, to March 10, 1919, and that from the 10th of March, 1919, the date of liquidation, it should pay taxes upon the value of said building and premises, i. e., $5,000; that at the rate of taxation on this basis of value and proportionment petitioner is only liable for taxes in the amount of $187.21, instead of $443.75, the amount appearing on the tax roll as due for taxes. Petitioner requests that the matter be submitted to the court, and an order be asked for from the court changing and correcting said assessment to show that the total tax due from petitioner is $187.21, instead of $443.75.

On May 4, 1920, an order was entered granting this relief and further ordering the collector to accept and receive $187.21 in full payment of all taxes of petitioner for 1919, and to execute a receipt in full for the taxes for said year against said petitioner, the First State Bank of Bernalillo.

The appellant, the State Tax Commission, assigns four errors, all of which may be considered under one general assignment that the court below was without jurisdiction of the parties and the subject-matter of the action. The appellee bank, the petitioner below, evidently sought relief from its taxes for 1919 under the provisions of Code 1915, § 5475, which is as follows:

“The assessment book when delivered to the county treasurer, properly verified by the affidavit of the county assessor, and properly certified by the county commissioners, as required by law, shall constitute his authority to collect the taxes therein set forth, and he shall not be held liable for any irregularity or illegality in any of the proceedings prior to his receiving said assessment book; and the amounts to be paid as taxes as shown by said assessment book, shall not be altered, reduced or in any manner changed, except by direction of the district or Supreme Court; but this prohibition shall not extend to the correction of obvious clerical errors in names, description of property or computation of amount of taxes. If the treasurer shall discover any errors of other kinds in said assessment book by which any injustice would be done to any taxpayer, it shall be his duty to report the same to the district attorney, and any taxpayer complaining of any such injustice may submit his complaint to the district attorney; and if the district attorney is satisfied that correction or change should be made so as to avoid injustice to the taxpayer, it shall be his duty to submit the matter to the district court and ask for an order of that court that such change or correction should be made, without cost to the taxpayer injuriously affected.”

This section has been considered by the court in other cases, but the precise point here raised has never been passed upon. We held in Bond-Dillon Co. v. Matson, Treasurer, 196 Pac. 323, decided at this term of court, that the district court was without jurisdiction to substitute its judgment for that of the duly constituted taxing authorities on the question of the value of the taxpayer's property, when that question, after...