Pawnee County Excise Bd. v. Kurn
| Decision Date | 16 April 1940 |
| Docket Number | 29684. |
| Citation | 101 P.2d 614,187 Okla. 110,1940 OK 202 |
| Parties | PAWNEE COUNTY EXCISE BOARD v. KURN et al. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Section 20, Article 10, of the State Constitution Okl.St.Ann which provides, "The Legislature shall not impose taxes for the purpose of any county, city, town, or other municipal corporation, but may, by general laws, confer on the proper authorities thereof, respectively, the power to assess and collect such taxes," applies to purely municipal affairs, and does not constitute a limitation upon the power of the Legislature of the State to impose taxes pursuant to Section 12, Article 10 for purposes which, although of a municipal character, are purposes in which the state has a sovereign interest, such as taxation for highways, and bridges.
2. The word "purpose" as used in section 20, article 10 of the State Constitution is descriptive of the primary object or end sought to be accomplished and when a county has issued its bonds for road construction purposes the fact that a county debt is thereby contracted, does not preclude subsequent payments made in retirement of the bonds from being expenditures for road construction purposes within the meaning of such constitutional provision.
3. The distribution to counties of certain funds derived by state tax for road construction and maintenance purposes, with requirement that a portion thereof be applied toward retiring road bond obligations, does not violate the provisions of sections 14, 19 or 20 of article 10 of the State Constitution.
Appeal from Court of Tax Review; James T. Shipman, Clarence Mills and J. I. Goins, Judges.
Proceeding in the matter of the protest by J. M. Kurn and John G Lonsdale, trustees of the St. Louis San Francisco Railway Company, of the levy of a certain portion of the 1939-40 sinking fund tax for Pawnee County. From a judgment of the Court of Tax Review sustaining the protest, Pawnee County Excise Board appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
Horace D. Ballaine, Co. Atty., of Pawnee (Carl D. McGee, of Pawnee, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.
J. W. Jamison, of St. Louis, Mo., and Cruce, Satterfield & Grigsby, of Oklahoma City, for defendants in error.
The taxing officials of Pawnee County refused to apply any portion of the moneys received by the county as its distributive share of vehicle license tax toward financing the sinking fund accruals on its road bonds for the fiscal year 1939-40. The result was a greater ad valorem tax levy on protestant's property than would have resulted otherwise.
In justification of their action the county here urges that the provisions of Article 7, Chapter 50, S. L. 1937, 47 Okl.St.Ann. §§ 19-19y and 77-77j, and Article 7, Chapter 50, S. L. 1939, 47 Okl.St.Ann. §§ 20 to 20.37, which require that a portion of such funds be used for the above mentioned purpose, are unconstitutional for various reasons which we quote as follows:
We also quote portions of the two legislative acts to which the taxing officials point as containing the unconstitutional requirements or provisions; being a portion of section 3 of the 1937 act, 47 Okl.St.Ann. § 19b(b), as follows:
The 1939 Act, a portion of Section 3, Article 7 of Chapter 50, 47 Okl.St.Ann. § 20.2, as follows:
The purpose of the levy of the tax is further expressed by the Legislature in the following language: "The registration fees imposed by this Act upon vehicles, other than those of manufacturers and dealers, shall be for the purpose of reimbursing the State for the use of the public highways and for the maintenance and upkeep of the public highways of the State and for the administration and enforcement of the provisions of this Act, and shall be in lieu of all ad valorem taxes, general or local, to which such vehicles may be subject, as personal property, under the laws of this State, and shall apply to every person operating any vehicle upon, over, along, or across any public highway of this State." See Sec. 8 of the 1937 Act, 47 Okl.St.Ann. § 19g, and Sec. 10 of the 1939 Act, 47 Okl.St.Ann. § 20.9.
We think there can be no doubt from a consideration of these acts in their entirety that the purpose of the tax levy in each instance is to provide for and promote the public road program which is inherently and by our Constitution a proper state purpose.
The county does not contend that the levy of the tax is unconstitutional, and appears to be willing to accept Pawnee County's distributive share thereof, thus recognizing the authority of the State to levy and collect the same for use in that county; nor do we understand that they claim that the levy is not, in its broadest sense, one for the promotion of roads in which the state and its citizens as a whole are beneficially interested.
The county would appear willing to accept the county's part of the proceeds of the levy, but in effect, says that the money must be retained and spent by them in future construction and maintenance of roads.
It is urged that when a county issues bonds for road purposes, that any money thereafter used to pay the bonds is simply a use of funds to pay debts, and that it cannot properly be said that the payments made on such bonds are payments for road purposes or in promotion of the procurement or maintenance of public roads. They place chief reliance on two Florida cases Amos v. Matthews, 99 Fla. 1, 65, 115, 126 So. 308, and Carlton v. Matthews, 103 Fla. 301, 137 So. 815. Those decisions contain some language...
To continue reading
Request your trial