Idaho Ry., Light & Power Co. v. Monk

• Decision Date: 18 June 1914
• Citation: 218 F. 682
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Idaho
• Parties: IDAHO RY., LIGHT & POWER CO. et al. v. MONK, County Treasurer, et al.

218 F. 682

IDAHO RY., LIGHT & POWER CO. et al. v. MONK, County Treasurer, et al.

United States District Court, D. Idaho, Southern Division.

June 18, 1914

Cavanah Blake & MacLane, of Boise, Idaho, for plaintiffs.

J. H Peterson, Atty. Gen. of Idaho, J. J. Guheen, T. C. Coffin and E. G. Davis, Asst. Attys. Gen. of Idaho, R. L. Givens, of Boise, Idaho, B. W. Henry, of Caldwell, Idaho, and C. E Melvin, of Silver City, Idaho, for defendants.

DIETRICH District Judge.

This suit was brought by the Idaho Railway, Light & Power Company against the treasurer and the auditor of Canyon county to enjoin the collection of certain taxes levied against its property. The cause is submitted upon the complaint and the answer and a brief stipulation of facts.

The property assessed is a hydro-electric power plant, together with transmission lines and distributing systems, by which the plaintiff furnishes electric current for lighting and power purposes in Ada, Canyon, and Owyhee counties, Idaho. The assessment was made by the state board of equalization, and it is objected, not that the property was exempt from taxation, or that the valuation is excessive, or that the board is without general authority or jurisdiction in the premises, but that its proceedings were so irregular as to render void that part of the valuation here called into question. Section 89 of the revenue laws of the state (Session Laws 1913, p. 200) provides that every corporation owning property of this character shall, on or before the second Monday of July of each year, furnish to the board a verified list and description thereof. By section 92 it is provided that the state board must assess all property subject to its jurisdiction at the meeting of the board 'convening on the second Monday of August in each year, and must complete the assessment of such property on the fourth Monday of August in that year. ' In section 93 it is provided that the board may, for the purpose of securing information, require the attendance of the owner of property, or of any officer or manager or agent of such owner, and require him to answer under oath all questions propounded to him. Section 95 provides that:

'Every person whose property is to be assessed by the state board of equalization shall, upon request therefor, in writing, be entitled to a hearing before the said board in relation to his assessment or the assessment of other property in the state, and the said board shall, upon any such request, fix a time for such hearing within the period within which such assessment must be made, and such hearing shall be conducted in such manner as the said board may direct.'

By section 96 it is directed that on or before the first Monday of September in each year the state auditor, as secretary of the board, shall prepare and transmit certified statements of the assessment of property by the board to the auditors of the several counties of the state.

The assessment complained of was made for the year 1913, and it appears that while the board was in session on August 18, 1913, a representative of the plaintiff company appeared, presented data, and made an argument with reference to the valuation to be placed upon its properties. Apparently this hearing was informal, for no request in writing was ever made by the plaintiff, as provided in section 95, and no hearing was ever ordered. Upon August 25th, the board being still in regular session, a tentative or conditional valuation of several properties, including that of the plaintiff, was adopted, as appears from the following entry in the minutes of the board:

'It was found upon investigation that reports on this class of property in many cases were incomplete and unsatisfactory, and for this reason are unsafe upon which to base an assessment; therefore, upon motion duly carried the following valuations were temporarily set, and by same motion, the said valuations were referred to the state tax commission for investigation, report, and recommendation as to valuation, property which had escaped, and any other recommendations and suggestions said commission might see fit to make, to the end that said property might be equitably taxed, the said temporary and tentative valuations to be filed in abeyance, and not definitely and finally fixed or acted upon until said report from said tax commission had been filed and acted upon by the state board of equalization, the board having practically no data or information upon which to base a true assessment.'

Appended to the entry was a detailed schedule of the valuations. Why the board adopted this tentative valuation is left to conjecture, and, upon the whole, seems quite inexplicable. Again, for some reason which apparently no one is able to explain, these assessments, although expressly stated to be tentative, and ordered 'to be filed in abeyance and not definitely and finally fixed or acted upon,' were promptly certified to the auditors of the several counties in which the properties are situate. Upon receipt of the certificates, these officers entered the valuations upon the tax rolls of the county, without any notations that they were tentative only. On November 22d, two days before the time when taxes became due and payable under the law, the state auditor telegraphed the county officers not to issue official receipts upon the valuations theretofore certified, and on December 4th the board of equalization again met, pursuant to the call of the chairman, as provided in the adjournment of August 25th. No notice of this meeting was given to the plaintiff; and, in so far as appears, it had no knowledge thereof, and was unrepresented. At this meeting, after considering the report of the state tax commission, the board entered an order very materially increasing the tentative valuations of August 25th, and thereupon the state auditor certified them to the several counties, with...