Miller v. Citizens' Nat. Bank

• Decision Date: 29 November 1926
• Docket Number: 25921
• Citation: 144 Miss. 533,110 So. 439
• Parties: MILLER, STATE REVENUE AGENT, v. CITIZENS' NAT. BANK. [*]
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

110 So. 439

144 Miss. 533

MILLER, STATE REVENUE AGENT, v. CITIZENS' NAT. BANK. ^[*]

No. 25921

Supreme Court of Mississippi

November 29, 1926

Division A

1 TAXATION. Assessments of bank shares estimated at par and increased by value of surplus held proper, though assessment rolls unnecessarily set forth manner of arriving at value (Hemingway's Code Supp. 1921, section 6907).

Under Laws 1920, chapter 193 (Hemingway's Code Supp. 1921 section 6907), assessments of value of bank shares, estimated at par and increased according to value of bank surplus, held proper, although assessment rolls unnecessarily set forth manner at which such value was arrived at, since any error therein could be corrected only on appeal within time allowed therefor.

2 TAXATION. Assessment of property is conclusive against taxpayer as to ownership and against taxpayer and public as to valuation. Assessment of property for taxation is conclusive as against taxpayer as showing that he is owner and taxable for property shown on roll, and against taxpayer and public in that valuation of enumerated property is as finally shown thereon.

HON. R M. BOURDEAUX, Judge.

APPEAL from circuit court of Lauderdale county, HON. R. M. BOURDEAUX, Judge.

Proceedings by W. J. Miller, State Revenue Agent, against the Citizens' National Bank for back assessments of its property. Judgment sustaining defendant's plea of res adjudicata on appeal to circuit court from orders of the board of supervisors of Lauderdale county and the city council of Meridian declining to back-assess the property, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Affirmed.

Wyatt Easterling and L. F. Easterling, for appellant.

The statute prescribing the method of taxation of banks as in force from 1918 to 1920 was section 6907, Hemingway's Code. For the years 1920-1922 said statute as amended by chapter 193, Laws of 1920 is substantially the same. These and similar sections have been under review in: Bank of Oxford v. Oxford, 70 Miss. 505, 12 So. 203; State v. Simmons, 70 Miss. 484, 12 So. 477; Bank of Oxford v. Lafayette County, 70 Miss. 152, 29 So. 825; Adams v. People's Bank, 108 Miss. 346, 66 So. 407; Bank v. Pike County, 111 Miss. 857, 72 So. 697; State Revenue Agent v. Bank, 108 Miss. 347, 66 So. 407.

It is our contention that since the return as made by the bank is copied on the face of the roll, approved as turned in by the tax assessor, showing on its face an estimated amount of deduction from capital stock, surplus and undivided profits, it is not res adjudicata to the amount so deducted. Horne v. Green, 52 Miss. 452; Magnolia Bank v. State, 111 Miss. 857, 72 So. 697; Revenue Agent v. Clark, 89 Miss. 134, 31 So. 216.

It is the contention of the appellant that the rolls here do not constitute res adjudicata, for the reason that it appears on the face of the rolls that these arbitrary deductions were made, and the board in approving the rolls excluded and excepted the amounts claimed as deductions; and, therefore, these amounts of capital stock, surplus, and undivided profits having been excluded from the assessments on the rolls, were not assessed; but, on the contrary, escaped taxation, and the appellant was clearly within his duty when he gave notice and caused these amounts to be back-assessed by way of an additional assessment.

On the face of the rolls it clearly appears that the banks were not assessed with, nor did they pay taxes on, the full value of capital stock as increased by surplus and undivided profits. Adams v. People's Bank, 66 So. 409; Revenue Agent v. Clark, 80 Miss. 134, 31 So. 216.

The roll itself shows on its face that the exact amounts sought to be back-assessed in the proceeding were the exact and identical amounts arbitrarily deducted from the value of the capital stock and enhanced by its surplus and undivided profits.

There can be no presumption when the unlawful method of assessment is shown on the face of the roll. The roll cannot be taken as conclusive that it did assess all the shares, surplus and undivided profits when it shows on its face that it did not, but approved arbitrary deduction for depreciation and insolvent credits.

The rolls attached to the objections as a matter of law, do not show that these amounts were ever assessed, so treated as a plea of res adjudicata this objection is not sufficient in law to preclude the back assessments contended for. Darnell v. Johnson, 66 So. 780, is directly in point.

They have no power under the law to deduct interest owing by the bank; or assets invested in non-taxable bonds. Suppose the roll had shown that Liberty Bonds owned by the bank were deducted from the value of the stock; would not that part excluded from taxation have escaped and would it not be liable to back-assessment? For a review of the law on duties and powers of assessing board, see Y. & M. V. R. R. Co. v Adams, 32 So. 942.

The demurrer should have been sustained, and the cause should be reversed and remanded.

Baskin, Wilbourn & Miller, for appellee.

The matter before the court is the attempted assessment of the Citizens National Bank before the board of supervisor of Lauderdale county and the city council of Meridian, Mississippi. It is the bank's contention, which was sustained by the city council, the board of supervisors and the circuit judge, that its capital stock, surplus and undivided profits did not escape taxation for the years in question; and that the matter of the assessment of the bank on its capital stock, surplus and undivided profits for the years in question is res adjudicata.

First, with reference to the case involving the attempted back-assessment of the bank for the year 1920 for state and county taxes, it is manifest from a mere reading of the entry made by the tax assessor and by the board of supervisors on the assessment roll itself that the board of supervisors specifically found and adjudicated what was the par or face value of the capital stock, surplus and undivided profits of the bank, and thus taking such finding as a basis, arrived at the true assessable value.

Furthermore, it is plain that the board in accepting and approving the assessment of the bank for the year 1920, by whatever process they followed, arrived at and fixed the assessable value of all of the capital stock, surplus and undivided profits of the bank for the year in question. No appeal was taken therefrom and the tax was paid on the basis thereof.

There was a solemn adjudication as to the amount of the assessable value of all of the capital stock, surplus and undivided profits of the bank; and it is not now competent for the revenue agent to maintain proceedings to back-assess the bank upon the theory that the board of supervisors erred in fixing the amount; or that the board of supervisors under-valued the assets of the bank.

The city council took as a basis the par value of the capital stock, surplus and undivided profits of the bank and starting with such basis, considered and adjudicated that the true assessable value was less than such amount and so entered it on the assessment roll, approved same and collected the taxes accordingly.

It was the peculiar function of the city council to arrive at the true assessable value of the property of the bank and to equalize it with other assessments.

We are unable to see in any of the authorities cited by appellant anything to sustain his contention. The method of assessment of banks is clearly set forth in section 6907, Hemingway's Code. See, also, Robertson v. Yazoo City Bank, 85 So. 177, which disposes of the present appeal. There are other cases, too, which, on the plea of res adjudicata, definitely dispose of this appeal in favor of the appellee bank. Adams v. People's Bank of Biloxi, 108 Miss. 346, 66 So. 407.

The dissent of Justices ETHRIDGE, HOLDEN and STEVENS in Robertson v. Yazoo City Bank, 85 So. 178, was based, not upon any disagreement with what was said by the other justices on the point of res adjudicata, but because, as they saw it in that case, there was a fraudulent return, and fraud had been admitted, and that fraud vitiated the judgment of the board of supervisors. There is no such issue raised in the case at bar; and, therefore, the dissenting opinion in the case of Robertson v. Bank, supra, is not applicable.

The point that this stock, surplus, and undivided profits of the bank have not escaped taxation by reason of not having been assessed is decided in Adams v. Luce, 87 Miss. 220, 39 So. 418; and the decision is followed in Robertson v. Bank, 85 Miss. 178.

The attorneys for the revenue agent insist that the board, as they view it, has acted without the sanction of law in fixing the assessment. In this we submit they are...