Peninsular Power Co. v. Wis. Tax Comm'n

• Decision Date: 06 March 1928
• Citation: 195 Wis. 231,218 N.W. 371
• Parties: PENINSULAR POWER CO. v. WISCONSIN TAX COMMISSION.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

195 Wis. 231

218 N.W. 371

PENINSULAR POWER CO.

v.WISCONSIN TAX COMMISSION.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

March 6, 1928.

Appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Dane County; August C. Hoppmann, Circuit Judge. Reversed.

The Peninsular Power Company brought this action under section 76.50, Stats., against the State Tax Commission for a review of an assessment of its property made by the Tax Commission under section 76.48, Stats. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant appealed.

The Peninsular Power Company is a public utility engaged in the business of generating, transforming, transmitting, and furnishing electric current for light, heat, and power. Its property is located in the towns of Commonwealth and Florence, in Florence county, and in the town of Niagara, in Marinette county. Its property was assessed for the purposes of taxation in 1924 by the tax commission pursuant to section 76.48, Stats., and the tax commission certified to the towns named the proportion of the assessed valuation properly belonging to each. The complaint alleges that the property of the plaintiff was assessed at its true value, and that the other property in the said three towns was assessed at much less than its true value, the ratio of assessed to true value in the town of Commonwealth being 83.53 per cent. in the town of Florence 68.42 per cent, and in the town of Niagara 69.328 per cent.

Upon the trial, the respective reports of the assessors of incomes for Florence and Marinette counties were introduced in evidence, which reports showed the ratio of assessed to true value in the towns in question to be as alleged in the complaint, and the trial court so found the fact to be. Judgment was entered by the court requiring the tax commission to reduce and scale down the assessment against plaintiff's property from the assessment of true value as found and determined by said defendant to an amount represented by said ratios. From that judgment, defendant brings this appeal.John W. Reynolds, Atty. Gen., and Suel O. Arnold, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.

Shaw, Muskat & Sullivan, of Milwaukee, for respondent.

OWEN, J.

Appellant contends that the record contains no competent evidence of the true value of the assessable property of the towns of Commonwealth, Florence, and Niagara other than that of the property of the plaintiff, and that, consequently, there was no competent evidence upon which the court could determine the ratio existing between the assessed value and the true value of the assessable property in said towns outside the property owned by the plaintiff. The evidence in this behalf consisted of reports made by the assessors of incomes of the counties of Florence and Marinette. Section 70.75, Stats., requires the assessor of incomes to make a report to the county board of each county within his assessment district showing in detail the work of local assessors in their several districts, the failure, if any, of such assessors or property owners to comply with the law, the relative assessed and true value of property in each local assessment district, and all such information and statistics as he may obtain which will be of assistance to the county board in determining the relative value of all taxable property in each town, city, and village in the county. Such report shall be filed with the county clerk at least 15 days before the annual meeting of the county board. Not less than six copies of such printed report, together with all statistics accompanying the same, shall be filed with the state tax commission. By section 327.10, Stats., it is provided:

“When a public officer is required or authorized by law to make a certificate or affidavit touching an act performed by him or to a fact ascertained by him in the course of his official duty and to file or deposit it in a public office such certificate or affidavit when so filed or deposited shall be received as presumptive evidence of the facts therein stated unless its effect is declared by some special provision of law.”

[1][2] The report made by the income tax assessor pursuant to law is equivalent to his certificate. The statute (section 70.75) requires that the report shall show “the relative assessed and true value of property in each local assessment district.” This is a fact which the law requires shall be ascertained by him. It would seem to follow that by virtue of section 327.10 the report of the income tax assessor constitutes presumptive evidence of the “relative assessed and true value of property in each local assessment district.” However, it is also the law that the assessment made by the local assessor is prima facie correct. State ex rel. Miller v. Thompson, 151 Wis. 184, 138 N. W. 628;State ex rel. Kimberly-Clark Co. v. Williams, 160 Wis. 648, 152 N. W. 450. The court therefore had before it the valuation of property in each town made by the local assessor. The law (sections 70.32 and 70.34) requires the assessor to value the assessable property of the town at its true cash value, and his valuation is prima facie correct. The law requires the assessor of incomes to ascertain “the relative assessed and true value of property in each local assessment district,” and his report thereon is presumptive evidence of the facts therein stated. Upon such a record, where is the weight of the evidence?

[3][4] While the law requires local assessors to assess the property of their respective assessment districts at its true cash value, it has long been a matter of common knowledge that they do not do so. This practice has aggravated taxation evils, and in late years efforts have been made to encourage a more faithful observance of the law in this respect on the part of local assessors. Whether this was the controlling reason for the creation of the tax commission, it has always been regarded as an evil which it was a part of the duty of the tax commission to correct. Supervisory and reviewing powers in numerous respects over local assessments have been conferredupon the tax commission. It has been the continuous effort of that body not only by an exercise of its various powers of supervision and review over local assessments, but in its public reports and preachments to promote more faithful assessments. The tax commission is the supreme administrative body of the state with reference to matters of assessment and taxation.

[5] The assessors of incomes are appointed by the state tax commission. They are under the direction and control of the state tax commission, “and shall make such reports to the commission, to the county board of review and the county board of supervisors, and perform such other duties, as the commission shall direct.” Section 71.07, Stats. By section 70.75 (2), Stats., it is provided that:

“The assessor of incomes shall have access to all public records, books, papers and offices throughout his district and shall make a full and complete examination of them and investigate all other matters and subjects relative to the assessment and taxation of property in the several towns, villages and cities contained therein; and for that purpose he shall visit each such town, village and city as often as may be necessary during each year.”

And by subsection (3) of said section 70.75 it is provided that:

“The assessor of incomes shall examine and test the work of assessors during the progress of their assessments and ascertain whether any of them is assessing property at other than full value or is omitting property subject to taxation from the roll.”

Many other provisions of the Statutes might be cited to indicate that the assessor of incomes is superior to the local assessor and is...