Okla. Tax Comm'n v. Clendinning, Case Number: 31647
| Decision Date | 16 November 1943 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 31647 |
| Citation | 143 P.2d 143,1943 OK 382,193 Okla. 271 |
| Parties | OKLAHOMA TAX COMMISSION et al. v. CLENDINNING, Dist. Judge. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. TAXATION -- "Confidential and privileged" character of individual income tax returns -- Limited power of courts to require production of returns.
Section 6 of the State Uniform Tax Procedure Act, 68 O. S. 1941 § 1454, fixes and declares the public policy that individual income tax returns shall be confidential and privileged from inspection or disclosure except in the proper administration or enforcement thereof, and prohibits any court of this state from requiring the production thereof except in cases when the facts shown thereby are directly involved in an action or proceeding in connection with the enforcement of the income tax law, or for use directly in the prosecution of the taxpayer for violation of the income tax law, or any other state tax law.
2. GRAND JURY--Duty of grand jury to investigate law violations only in its own county.
By express provision of the law it is the duty of a grand jury to investigate law violations in its own county, and it has no duty to investigate transactions or acts occurring wholly outside its county, not connected with law violations in its county, or triable therein.
3. TAXATION--County attorney without right to inspect individual income tax returns on file with Tax Commission made by citizens residing and having their place of business and verifying returns in other counties.
A county attorney has no right for any purpose to inspect individual income tax returns on file with the Tax Commission which were made by citizens who resided and had their place of business and verified their returns in other counties of the state, because by express legislative enactment they are confidential and privileged from such inspection.
4. GRAND JURY--Witness may not be compelled to testify as to communications or transactions declared by statute to be confidential and privileged.
Neither the grand jury nor its presiding district judge can compel a witness to testify as to communications or transactions which are expressly declared by statute to be confidential and privileged. And the witness refusing to make such a disclosure may not be proceeded against for contempt.
5. PROHIBITION--Writ as proper remedy when order of district court is unauthorized by law.
Prohibition is the proper remedy when an order of the district court is unauthorized by law, and beyond its jurisdiction and amounts to an unauthorized application of judicial power.
Original action by the Oklahoma Tax Commission and members thereof to prohibit enforcement of order of S. J. Clendinning, District Judge of Tulsa County, to produce and open to inspection the individual income tax returns of fifty named citizens of the state, residents of some twenty-five or more counties of the state, which returns are properly on file with the Oklahoma Tax Commission as a part of its official files and records. Prohibition granted.
E. L. Mitchell and C. W. King, both of Oklahoma City, for Oklahoma Tax Commission.
Randell S. Cobb, Atty. Gen., and Fred Hansen, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.
Dixie Gilmer, County Atty., and M. S. Sims and William M. Taylor, Assts. County Atty., all of Tulsa, for respondent.
¶1 The Oklahoma Tax Commission has filed this proceeding in this court for a writ of prohibition to prevent the district court of Tulsa county from enforcing an order directing the production by the Tax Commission of income tax returns of some 50 citizens of Oklahoma, residents of some 25 or more counties of the state, for inspection by and exhibition before a grand jury in session in said county. Subpoena duces tecum was served on the Honorable J. Frank Martin, Chairman of said Tax Commission, directing him to produce said returns, and upon his refusal to produce and exhibit same he was adjudged guilty of contempt of court, but the court deferred sentence for said alleged contempt pending application to this court for a determination of the right to require such production for such purposes. This application was therefore filed and this court assumed original jurisdiction.
¶2 This is not a proceeding by any of the persons whose income tax returns are sought to be exhibited, and none of them is a party hereto. The Tax Commission, as a public body, asserts that by a specific legislative provision said returns are "confidential and privileged," except as to specific persons and except for specific purposes and in a specific manner, and the Legislature provided that a wrongful disclosure by them of said tax returns would subject them to a criminal prosecution punishable by fine not exceeding $ 1,000 or by imprisonment in the county jail for a term not exceeding one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment, as well as removal or dismissal from office. Attended with such serious consequences it would seem therefore that the public officials constituting the Tax Commission should proceed with the greatest caution in disclosing said returns in consonance with the legislative declaration as to their confidential and privileged character.
¶3 This court in this proceeding is in no wise concerned judicially as to the contents of said returns, but the sole question for determination is whether the production thereof for inspection and exhibition before the grand jury can be required. On the other hand, the county attorney of Tulsa county, representing the respondent district judge, asserts the right to said production, and therefore the validity of the order of the court, and is insisting upon the punishment of the chairman of the Tax Commission for contempt.
¶4 As preliminary to the consideration of the determinative question, let us examine the power and duties of a grand jury.
¶5 By 22. O. S. 1941 § 311, it is provided:
"A grand jury is a body of men consisting of twelve jurors impaneled and sworn to inquire into and true presentment make of all public offenses against the State committed or triable within the county for which the court is holden."
¶6 Section 331, Id., provides:
"The grand jury has power to inquire into all public offenses committed or triable in the county or subdivision, and to present them to the court, by indictment or accusation in writing."
¶7 Section 324, Id., provides, in part:
" . . . You, as foreman of this grand jury, shall diligently inquire into, and true presentment make, of all public offenses against this State, committed or triable within this county (or subdivisions), of which you shall have or can obtain legal evidence. . . ."
¶8 By specific statutory enactment it seems clear that the power and authority of a grand jury is to investigate only crimes committed or triable within its county. While a grand jury has wide powers of investigation and indictment, definite limits have been placed thereon. It may not concern itself with investigation and indictment for offenses occurring wholly outside of the county wherein it is impaneled. Such functions are delegated by other provisions of the Constitution and statutes to the county attorney of such other county or to a grand jury duly impaneled therein. A grand jury is an arm of the court impaneling it and is, in some respects, subject to its supervisory action. Burke v. Territory, 2 Okla. 499, 37 P. 829. See, also, annotation in 22 A. L. R. 1361 and 106 A. L. R. 1384. It is not contended by the county attorney herein that the grand jury is empowered to investigate crimes not committed or triable within the county, but he contends that it is for the grand jury to say in the first instance whether or not a violation of the law has occurred, and if so, whether or not it was committed within the county or whether or not it is triable in said county.
¶9 In this connection it is alleged by the Tax Commission, and duly verified, and not denied by respondent, that none of the named citizens resides in Tulsa county or has any place of business in said county, and none of said returns was verified in said county. It is at once apparent, therefore, that the grand jury cannot concern itself with a violation of the income tax laws by said citizens unless the statutory provisions give such authority. We therefore set out the pertinent statutes:
¶10 68 O. S. 1941 § 1486 provides that exclusive venue is in the county court of the county of the taxpayer's residence for failure to file return, and is as follows:
¶11 For false or fraudulent return the exclusive venue is in the county court of the county where the return was verified, as provided by 68 O. S. 1941 § 1487, as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
- In The Matter of The Application of Sylvia McCormick SPILMAN for Expungement v. Okla. Bar Ass'n
-
Tweedy v. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n
... ... In case of a negative disposition, the problem could ... Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Clendinning, 193 Okl. 271, 143 P.2d 143 (1944); Bennett v ... ...
- Roberts Tobacco Co. v. Mich. Dep't of Revenue
-
State ex rel. Cobb v. Mills
... 163 P.2d 558 82 Okla.Crim. 155 STATE ex rel. COBB, Atty. Gen., et al ... Davis was charged in each case with the ... crime of manslaughter ... Tax Commission v. Clendinning, 193 Okl. 271, 143 P.2d ... 143, 151 A.L.R ... briefly reviewed the facts in a number of cases and given the ... conclusions reached ... ...