Idaho State Tax Com'n v. Staker

• Decision Date: 29 October 1982
• Docket Number: No. 14740,14740
• Citation: 663 P.2d 270,104 Idaho 734
• Parties: IDAHO STATE TAX COMMISSION, Petitioner, v. Bill STAKER, Canyon County Auditor; Richard Pence, Twin Falls County Auditor; Marie Ivie Lilya, Blaine County Auditor; Margaret F. Clements, Gooding County Auditor; Elaine S. Johnson, Caribou County Auditor; and Ronald Longmore, Bonneville County Auditor; The Honorable Douglas D. Kramer; The Honorable Jim R. Doolittle; The Honorable Robert G. Newhouse; and the Honorable Francis J. Rasmussen, Respondents.
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

Page 270

663 P.2d 270

104 Idaho 734

IDAHO STATE TAX COMMISSION, Petitioner, v. Bill STAKER, Canyon County Auditor; Richard Pence, Twin Falls County Auditor; Marie Ivie Lilya, Blaine County Auditor; Margaret F. Clements, Gooding County Auditor; Elaine S. Johnson, Caribou County Auditor; and Ronald Longmore, Bonneville County Auditor; The Honorable Douglas D. Kramer; The Honorable Jim R. Doolittle; The Honorable Robert G. Newhouse; and the Honorable Francis J. Rasmussen, Respondents.

No. 14740.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

Oct. 29, 1982.

Dissenting Opinion Nov. 5, 1982.

David H. Leroy, Atty. Gen., Theodore V. Spangler, David G. High, Deputy Attys. Gen., Boise, for petitioner.

William A. Morrow, Caldwell, Harry C. DeHaan, VI, Twin Falls, Ray Keith Roark, Hailey, Douglas F. Rose, Shoshone, Clyde G. Nelson, Soda Springs, Lynn E. Thomas, Boise, Michael Arnold Henderson, Hailey, Richard N. Gariepy, Ketchum, William J. Brauner, Caldwell, for respondents.

Charles F. McDevitt and Kenneth L. Mallea, of Givens, McDevitt, Pursley & Webb, Boise, for amicus curiae Associated Taxpayers.

PER CURIAM.

This matter is before the court on the petition and amended petition for alternative writ of mandamus by the Idaho State Tax Commission.

The action was originally instituted against the auditors of six counties and ultimately amended to incorporate as respondents district judges sitting in four of the respective counties.

Upon receipt of the petitions, this court directed the respondents to file responses and supporting briefs, and attorneys representing all parties, including amicus curiae, the Associated Taxpayers of Idaho, made oral presentations before the court relative to their respective positions.

Original jurisdiction of this court is invoked pursuant to Title 1, Chapter 2 of the Idaho Code and the matter has proceeded pursuant to I.C. § 7-301 et seq. and I.A.R. 43.

There are primarily three central issues raised in this proceeding:

1. Whether the State Tax Commission is empowered and authorized to equalize the assessments of property in all the counties of the state of Idaho, and has the State Tax Commission in this case exercised that power and authority in accordance with the statutes of the State of Idaho and the constitution of the United States and the State of Idaho.

2. Whether the acts requested by the State Tax Commission of the county auditors are ministerial acts subject to enforcement by writ of mandamus.

3. May the respondents contest the tax commission's actions in a judicial proceeding, and if so, what is the standard of review of the tax commission's action?

The circumstances which bring the foregoing issues to this court may be summarized as follows. Pursuant to I.C. § 63-605, the Idaho State Tax Commission, sitting as a State Board of Equalization, convened in the first week of August, 1982, to review the assessments of property throughout the state by various categories, as said assessments were performed by the various county assessors. The Board, using various data supplied to it, determined that the property of seven counties as to several categories of property was being assessed at a rate markedly below the average state level and therefore entered its directive to the respective county auditors requiring that the county auditors enter upon the real property assessment rolls of their respective counties certain adjustments to accomplish equalization. The auditor of Boundary County complied but the auditors of six other counties have not complied, either on the basis of their individual decisions not to do so, request by the county commissioners, or in obedience to the temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions issued by the respondent district judges which prohibited their compliance. This action proceeds with respect to the counties of Canyon, Twin Falls, Blaine, Gooding, and Caribou. Bonneville has been removed from the case by stipulation.

Regarding Issue No. 1, we think it is clear, and counsel for some of the respondents acknowledge in the hearing before this court, that the tax commission is constitutionally and statutorily empowered and authorized to equalize the assessments of property among the various counties of the State of Idaho. Idaho Const. Art. 7 § 12. I.C. § 63-513. Ada County v. Bottolfsen, 61 Idaho 363, 102 P.2d 287 (1940); Northwest Light Co. v. Alexander, 29 Idaho 557, 160 P. 1106 (1916). From the record, we also conclude that the tax commission procedurally followed the statutes of the State of Idaho in directing the respondent auditors to make the equalization adjustments which are the subject of this litigation, and that those procedures do not violate the due process provisions of either the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution or the due process clause of the state constitution.

With regard to the second issue, we also conclude that it is clear from our prior cases and cases from other jurisdictions that the mandate of I.C. § 63-614 which requires that:

"As soon as the county auditor receives the certified statements [the certified statement from the State Tax Commission showing changes in the assessments] ... he shall enter in the columns in which the items to be corrected appear imposes a "purely ministerial" duty upon the county auditor and that if he refuses to carry out that duty a writ of mandamus will lie to compel his performance of that ministerial duty. People v. Hively, 139 Colo. 49, 336 P.2d 721 (1959); State Tax Commission v. Johnson, 75 Idaho 105, 269 P.2d 1080 (1954).

[104 Idaho 736] upon the real property assessment roll, in red ink, all changes and corrections made by the state tax commission in the assessment ...,"

The third issue raises a more difficult question concerning whether or not the respondents in this action can judicially contest the tax commission's order, and if so what standard of review is applicable.

In Utah Oil Refining Co. v. Hendrix, 72 Idaho 407, 411, 242 P.2d 124 (1952), this court had under consideration an action where a taxpayer sought and received a writ of mandate from this court compelling the officials of Ada County to comply with an order of the State Tax Commission. In issuing the writ this court stated:

"... the order of the Tax Commission is immune to collateral attack to the same extent as judicial decisions ..."

Similarly, the Supreme Court of Colorado, in People v. Hively, 139 Colo. 49, 336 P.2d 721 (1959), considering a mandamus action by Colorado's tax commission against a county assessor requiring the county assessor to make additions and corrections in the assessment roll of the county involved, commented as follows:

"... Essentially, this is a jurisdictional conflict between officers of the county and of the state...."

The court, in Hively, then, after rejecting the procedural and constitutional arguments raised by the assessor and after holding that the acts requested of the assessor were "purely ministerial" summarized its holding as follows at 336 P.2d 735:

"Thus the Assessor here had no more standing to question the validity of the action of the Board than a lower court has to question the validity of the mandate of a reviewing court. He was obligated to carry out the mandate of the Board. There is no legal justification for his defiance and the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. It follows that writs of mandamus and prohibition are here appropriate."

Similarly, as in Colorado, the Idaho State Tax Commission is empowered, authorized and directed to equalize the assessments of property of all counties throughout the state. The tax commission is a constitutionally established body pursuant to Article 7 § 12 of the constitution, which provides that the tax commission shall have "such other powers and perform such other duties as may be prescribed by law, including the supervision and coordination of the work of the several county boards of equalization." The legislature, pursuant to the constitutional mandate, has empowered and directed the tax commission to equalize the assessments throughout the state through the provisions of Chapter 6, Title 63 of the Idaho Code. Accordingly, the action of the State Tax Commission, involved herein, is not only authorized, but mandated.

The respondent county auditors assert that the proper forum for determining the issues involved in this action, are actions before the district courts pursuant to I.C. § 63-202A. A reading of the entire Chapter 6 of Title 63 makes it clear that I.C. § 63-202A involves the assessment function of a county official as distinguished from the equalization process by the State Tax Commission at issue here.

While the legislature in I.C. § 63-3811 has made specific provision for appeal by taxpayers or county assessors to the Board of Tax Appeals from determination of ad valorem taxes made pursuant to I.C. § 63-401 (county commission meeting as a board of equalization), I.C. § 63-2210 (appeals from county board of equalization), I.C. § 63-3049 (income tax assessments) and I.C. § 63-3632 (sales tax assessments), the legislature has made no provision for an appeal to be taken from the decision of the tax commission in equalizing assessments made pursuant to I.C. § 63-605, et seq. Therefore, it is apparent that the legislature did not contemplate that the action of "There is no method of appeal pointed out by statute to secure review of the action of said board. The writ of certiorari is the proper and only means of bringing such action before this court for review."

[104 Idaho 737] the State Tax Commission in equalizing assessments would be subject to review by either the district courts or by the Board of Tax Appeals. This court largely determined the central issue of this appeal in its 1891 decision of Orr v. State Board of Equalization, 3 Idaho 190, 194, 28 P. 416, referring to the State Board of Equalization, whose powers now are conferred upon the State Tax Commission pursuant to ...