Opinion of the Justices

• Decision Date: 11 April 1962
• Citation: 181 N.E.2d 793,344 Mass. 766
• Parties: OPINION OF THE JUSTICES to the House of Representatives.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

Page 793

181 N.E.2d 793

344 Mass. 766

OPINION OF THE JUSTICES to the House of Representatives.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts April 11, 1962.

To the Honorable to House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts:

The Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court respectfully submit these answers to the questions set forth in an order adopted by the House on April 3, 1962, and submitted to us on April 5. The order refers to House No. 3463 now pending before the House and entitled, 'An Act providing for a certain exemption from taxation to resident home owners.' The bill seeks to amend G.L. c. 59, § 5, by adding a new exemption from local taxation as follows: 'Fortieth, Real property, to the amount of five thousand dollars, of any person or persons who are legal residents of the commonwealth; provided, that such property is occupied in good faith by such person or persons as their domicile.'

The questions are as follows:

'1. Is it within the competency of the General Court, under that clause of Article IV of Section I of Chapter I of Part the Second of the Constitution of Massachusetts which reads, in part, as follows:--'The General Court is empowered to impose and levy proportional and reasonable assessments, rates and taxes, upon all the inhabitants of, and persons resident, and estates lying, within the said commonwealth; and also impose and levy reasonable duties and excises upon any produce, goods, wares, merchandise, and commodities, whatsoever, brought into, produced, manufactured, or being within the same; * * * And while the public charges of government, or any part thereof, shall be assessed on polls and estates, in the manner that has hitherto been practised, in order that such assessments may be made with equality, there shall be a valuation of estates within the commonwealth, taken anew once in every ten years at least, and as much oftener as the general court shall order,' or under Article 10 of the Declaration of Rights which reads, in part, as follows:--'Each Individual of the society has a right to be protected by it in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property, according to standing laws. He is obliged consequently, to contribute his share to the expense of this protection,' or under any other provision of the Constitution relative to taxation or exemption from taxation, to enact law granting an exemption from taxation of five thousand dollars on real property owned by any person or persons who are legal residents of the commonwealth, provided that such property is occupied in good faith by such person or persons as his domicile?

'2. Is the exemption from taxation provided for in said bill, House, No. 3463 a reasonable exemption based upon grounds of sound public policy?'

The term 'legal residents' is likely to give rise to differences of opinion as to what is intended. See Rummel v. Peters, 314 Mass. 504, 511-514, 51 N.E.2d 57. See also Krakow v. Department of Pub. Welfare, 326 Mass. 452, 454, 95 N.E.2d 184 ('resident'); Commissioner of Corps. & Taxation v. Malden, 327 Mass. 271, 273-274, 98 N.E.2d 277 ('non-resident'); Aufiero v. Aufiero, 332 Mass. 149, 153, 123 N.E.2d 709 ('residence'). We shall assume that House No. 3463 intends to refer to natural persons domiciled within the Commonwealth.

The apparent aim of the bill is to lighten the impact upon individual home owners of constitutional provisions quoted in the first question and of certain statutes relating to the assessment of local property taxes. These were construed in Bettigole v. Assessors of Springfield, Mass., 178 N.E.2d 10, ¹ with quotations from the pertinent authorities. The expression 'proportional and reasonable' in Part II, c. 1, § 1, art. 4, 'forbids the imposition of taxes upon one class of persons or property at a different rate from that which is applied to other classes.' Opinion of the Justices, 341 Mass. 738, 750, 167 N.E.2d 745, 752. Cheshire v. County Com'rs of Berkshire, 118 Mass. 386, 389; Carr v. Assessors of Springfield, 339 Mass. 89, 92, 157 N.E.2d 880. The words 'his share' in Art. 10 of the Declaration of Rights 'forbid the imposition upon one taxpayer of a burden relatively greater or relatively less than that imposed upon other taxpayers.' Opinion of the Justices, 332 Mass. 769, 777, 126 N.E.2d 795. See Stone v. Springfield, 341 Mass. 246, 248, 168 N.E.2d 76.

In Opinion of the Justices, 324 Mass. 724, 85 N.E.2d 222, the answer was made that proposed legislation exempting residential buildings from local real estate taxation for a period of five years after construction would be violative of the constitutional provisions quoted in the first question. It was there pointed out (page 729, 85 N.E.2d page 225) that a tax assessed upon most property at the current rate but upon other property at a lower or no rate at all would not be 'proportional' to the property owned. So, in House No. 3463 an exemption of $5,000 to the favored property owners would similarly result in a tax which would not be proportional to the property owned.

In Newhall v. Assessors of Brookline, 329 Mass. 100, 106 N.E.2d 432, it was held that an increase from $1,000 to $5,000 in the exemption from local taxation of...