In re Assessment of Yakima Amusement Co.
Decision Date | 15 November 1937 |
Docket Number | 26538. |
Citation | 73 P.2d 519,192 Wash. 174 |
Parties | In re ASSESSMENT OF YAKIMA AMUSEMENT CO. v. YAKIMA COUNTY et al. YAKIMA AMUSEMENT CO. |
Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 1.
Appeal from Superior Court, Yakima County; A. W. Hawkins, Judge.
Proceeding in the matter of the assessment of the Yakima Amusement Company, a corporation, by the Yakima Amusement Company against Yakima County and others. From a judgment dismissing an appeal from an order of the State Tax Commission, the Yakima Amusement Company appeals.
Affirmed.
Cheney & Hutcheson and Walter J. Robinson, Jr. both of Yakima, and Allen & Wilkins, of Seattle, for appellant.
Robert J. Willis and Don M. Tunstall, both of Yakima, for respondents.
The valuation of the property of the Yakima Amusement Company for taxation purposes was assessed by the assessor of Yakima county at $10,000 as of March 1, 1935. The valuation was increased by the County Board of Equalization to $50,000. The taxpayer appealed to the State Tax Commission, which, after a hearing, entered an order fixing the assessed valuation in the amount of $35,000. From that order, the taxpayer appealed to the superior court for Yakima county. On motion of the defendants, the appeal was dismissed upon the ground that the superior court had no jurisdiction over such an appeal. The Yakima Amusement Company has appealed from that order of dismissal.
Appellant insists that a taxpayer, who feels aggrieved by an order of the State Tax Commission fixing the valuation of his property, has a right of appeal from such order, to the superior court.
Chapter 18, page 33, of the Laws of 1925, created and defined the powers and duties of the State Tax Commission. Section 7 of chapter 18 (page 38) provided for an appeal by any party feeling aggrieved by any order of the Tax Commission to the superior court of the county in which the property affected is located, or to the superior court for Thurston county. That section reads as follows:
By chapter 280, page 676, Laws 1927, the legislature re-enacted, in the same language, all of the provisions of chapter 18, Laws of 1925, and added an additional section, which reads as follows: Laws 1927, p. 685.
Section 7, chapter 280, page 681, Laws 1927, which provides for an appeal from the State Tax Commission to the superior court, is identical with section 7, chapter 18, Laws 1925.
Chapter 62, page 201, of the Laws of 1931 provided a new and exclusive method of challenging the validity of any tax, or any portion of any tax. Section 7, chapter 62, page 204, of the Laws of 1931, provides that: 'Except as permitted by this act, no action shall ever be brought attacking the validity of any tax, or any portion of any tax.'
By that act, the exclusive method provided of seeking a reduction of a claimed unlawful or excessive assessment for taxation purposes was by payment of the tax as levied, under protest, and then instituting an action in the superior court to recover that portion of the tax deemed to be excessive.
Section 8, chapter 62, page 204, Laws 1931, provides: 'That section 7, chapter 18, of the Laws of 1925 be, and the same is hereby repealed.'
The 1931 enactment expressly repealed section 7, chapter 18 of the Laws 1925, which is word for word the same as section 7, chapter 280, Laws 1927. The latter (chapter 280, Laws 1927) statute is not mentioned in the 1931 enactment.
This presents the question whether the right of appeal from the Tax Commission to the superior court,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States Smelting Refining & Mining Co. v. Lowe
...226 P. 501; Fletcher v. Prather, 102 Cal. 413, 36 P. 658; West & Co. v. Board of Com., 14 Idaho 353, 94 P. 445; Yakima Amusement Co. v. Yakima County, 192 Wash. 179, 73 P.2d 519; State ex rel. City of Omaha v. Board of Com., 109 Neb. 35, 189 N.W. 639; 59 C.J. 881, Sec. 464; also page 883, S......
-
Adams County v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co.
...to have been illegally assessed, must pay the tax under protest and then bring an action to recover." The court cited In re Yakima Amusement Co., 192 Wash. 174, 73 P.2d 519. In Denny v. Wooster, 175 Wash. 272, 27 P.2d 328, December 1, 1933, the Supreme Court of Washington held that an actio......
-
Dexter Horton Bldg. Co. v. King County
... ... reduction of a tax assessment and recovery of excessive ... amount of taxes paid. From a judgment for plaintiff, ... seq., as we held in Re Yakima Amusement Company v. Yakima ... County, 192 Wash. 174, 73 P.2d 519, the exclusive method ... ...
-
State ex rel. Crabb v. Olinger
... ... of right. Unless it is found in the statutes, it does not ... exist. Yakima Amusement Co. v. Yakima County, 192 ... Wash. 174, 73 P.2d 519 ... The ... review the ... [82 P.2d 872] ... assessment and valuation of the property of the Weyerhaeuser ... Timber Company. The appealing taxpayers ... ...