Hansen v. Wilder
| Decision Date | 07 January 1957 |
| Docket Number | 9643,Nos. 9642,s. 9642 |
| Citation | 80 N.W.2d 306,76 S.D. 438 |
| Parties | Lowell C. HANSEN, Relator, v. W. R. WILDER, Commissioner of Revenue, Ed T. Elkins, State Treasurer, F. A. Allbee, State Auditor, Bernard Linn, Commissioner of School and Public Lands, Morris G. Hallock, Secretary of Finance, as the State Board of Equalization, Defendants. STATE of South Dakota ex rel. George SCHAEFER et al., Plaintiffs, v. Morris G. HALLOCK et al., Defendants. |
| Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
Stordahl, May & Boe, Sioux Falls, for plaintiff.
Phil Saunders, Atty. Gen., Olin C. Thompson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendants.
Boyce, Warren, Murphy & McDowell, Sioux Falls, E. W. Stephens, Pierre, for plaintiffs.
Phil Saunders, Atty. Gen., Olin C. Thompson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendants.
This is an original proceeding in certiorari to review the action of the State Board of Equalization.
It appears that at the 1956 meeting of the State Board of Equalization the valuation of all classes of property as returned to the State Board by the counties in the state was increased from approximately $1,800,000,000 to $2,500,000,000. This increase in valuations as made by the State Board is the basis of relators' claim that the State Board exceeded its jurisdiction and that its action is void in its entirety.
The relators make three principal contentions. First, that the State Board of Equalization is prohibited by SDC 57.0415 from in any way raising the total valuation of property in the state as returned to the State Board by the several counties. Second, that the State Board is without power to increase valuation apart from the prohibition contained in SDC 57.0415. Third, that by increasing the total valuations from $1,800,000,000 to $2,500,000,000 the State Board acted arbitrarily and capriciously and in excess of its jurisdiction.
We briefly consider first the function of this court in this proceeding. Obviously, we are not sitting as a State Board of Equalization nor are we in this proceeding permitted to review mere errors or irregularities, if any, committed by the State Board. Our only function is to inquire into and determine whether the State Board acted without jurisdiction or in excess of the jurisdiction conferred by law. State ex rel. American Express Company v. State Board of Assessment and Equalization, 3 S.D. 338, 53 N.W. 192.
We think it essential to perface our subsequent holding with a brief history of the duties and function of the State Board of Equalization. Ch. 28, Laws of 1897, § 44, prescribed the duties and powers of the State Board of Equalization as follows:
'It shall be the duty of said board to examine and compare the returns of the assessment of the property of the several counties of the state, and proceed to equalize the same, so that all the taxable property in the state shall be assessed at its true and proportionate value; but said board shall not reduce the aggregate assessed valuation in the state, but may increase said aggregate valuation in such an amount as may be reasonably necessary to obtain a just and true value and equalization of all the property in the state.'
Sec. 45 of the same Act provides:
'Said board has the power and shall:
The second paragraph of Section 45 provides for the equalization of the assessment of personal property in substantially the same manner as provided for the equalization of land and the third paragraph of this section provides:
'Said board, in maring such equalization, may add to or deduct from the aggregate assessed valuation of lands, town or city lots or any other class of personal property throughout the state, such per centum as may (be) deemed by the board to be equitable and just, but in all cases of addition to or deduction from the assessed valuation of any class of property in the several counties, or throughout the state, the rate per cent of addition or deduction shall be even and not fractional.'
The provisions of Sec. 45 of the 1897 Act above quoted and referred to have remained in our law practically unchanged until the present time and are now found as part of SDC 57.0420. We think it clear that in 1897 wherein it was provided in Sec. 45 that if the Board 'believed the valuation to be too low' the basis upon which such belief was to be founded was provided in Sec. 44 of that Act by the following language: '* * * but may increase said aggregate valuation in such an amount as may be reasonably necessary to obtain a just and true value and equalization of all the property in the state.' In other words, it appears that at that time the basis on which the State Board was to make its determination was the 'just and true value' of the property.
The provisions of the 1897 law were modified by Sec. 2, Ch. 44, Laws of 1901. The duties of the State Board were therein prescribed as follows:
'It shall be the duty of said board to examine and compare the returns of the assessment of the property of the several counties of the state, and proceed to equalize the same so that the taxable property of the several counties shall be assessed at its proportionate value, but said board shall not increase the aggregate assessed valuation in the state as equalized by the boards of county commissioners by more than three million dollars, * * *'.
It should be noted, however, that although the duties of the State Board were changed somewhat the provisions of the above quoted Sec. 45 of the 1897 Act remained. In 1903, Laws 1903, c. 65, the $3,000,000 limitation was changed to $100,000,000 so under this 1903 Act the State Board could increase the aggregate assessed valuation as returned by the counties to the extent of $100,000,000 and at a time when the total assessed valuation of the state was only $186,973,276. See Thirtieth Annual Report, Department of Finance, page 129. In other words, following the 1903 amendment which increased the limitation from $3,000,000 to $100,000,000 the State Board of Equalization was permitted to increase the aggregate assessed valuation of the state by something more than 50%. It should be noted also that this 1903 Act empowered the State Board to not only equalize the valuations but to 'assess if necessary.'
This 1903 law further provided, 'Any board of assessment and of equalization of state, county, city or township shall have power, and is hereby required to equalize and to assess if necessary the property of any individual, association or corporation so that it shall be assessed as required by law.' This provision of the 1903 law has been carried in our law until the present time, and is now found among the powers of the State Board contained in SDC 57.0420 wherein it is provided, 'It [State Board] shall have the power and is required to equalize and to assess, if necessary, the property of any person, partnership, association, company or corporation so that it shall be assessed as required by law.'
Ch. 352, Laws of 1913, created the State Tax Commission and transferred to such commission the powers and duties of the State Board of Equalization. Sec. 10 of that Act, among other things, provided that the Tax Commission '* * * shall have power to equalize the assessment of all property in this state between persons, firms or corporations of the same assessment district, between cities and townships of the same county and between different counties of the state, and the property assessed by said commission in the first instance; such powers to be possessed by said commission regardless of any limitation now fixed by law in regard to the increase of the aggregate valuation which may be made by said board, * * *'.
It appears, therefore, that in 1913 all limitation upon the action of the State Board of Equalization in increasing aggregate valuations as returned by the counties was removed and there is at present no limitation upon the State Board in this respect unless such limitation be found in SDC 57.0415, which will be hereinafter discussed. Ch. 186, Laws of 1933 transferred the power to equalize the assessment of the property in the state from the Tax Commission to the State Board of Equalization. Presently the powers, duties and jurisdiction of the State Board of Equalization are found in SDC 57.0419 and SDC 57.0420, the material parts of which we quote.
'In equalizing the assessment between persons of the same assessment district no increase of any individual assessment shall be made without notice to the person in whose name the property is assessed, which notice shall specify a time and place of hearing on the proposed increase in assessment and may be given by personal service thereof or by registered mail.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baken Park, Inc. v. Pennington County
...42% of true values. Respondent attempts to discount his testimony for the reason he had made only a few ratio studies (See Hansen v. Wilder, 76 S.D. 438, 80 N.W.2d 306); however, the State Division of Taxation made a separate ratio study and the County Director in a report to the Pennington......
-
Codington County Bd. of Com'rs v. State, Bd. of Equalization, 15960
...the trial court, is that City has no grounds for complaint because its assessments are below true and full value. See Hansen v. Wilder, 76 S.D. 438, 80 N.W.2d 306 (1957). Hansen did not involve violation of constitutional and legislative directives regarding assessment of one class of prope......
-
Department of Property Valuation v. Yuma County Bd. of Sup'rs
...necessarily to change individual assessments. See, e.g., Suydam v. Merrick County, 19 Neb. 155, 27 N.W. 142 (1886); Hansen v. Wilder, 76 S.D. 438, 80 N.W.2d 306 (1957); Ballard County v. Citizens State Bank of Wickliffe, 261 S.W.2d 420 (Ky.1953); and 84 C.J.S. Taxation § 493, p. The broad p......
-
Appeal of Butte County
...of authority to act other than that granted in SDCL 10-11-47. Butte County points out that the majority opinion in Hansen v. Wilder, 76 S.D. 438, 80 N.W.2d 306 (1957), described the authority of the State Board under SDC 57.0419 and 57.0420, when it came to increasing or decreasing valuatio......