People ex rel. Wisdom v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co.
| Decision Date | 18 March 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 38845,38845 |
| Citation | 32 Ill.2d 434,206 N.E.2d 702 |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
| Parties | The PEOPLE ex rel. Dave WISDOM, County Collector, Appellee, v. CHICAGO, BURLINGTON & QUINCY RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant. |
R. T. Cubbage, T. G. Schuster, Chicago, Vandever & Vandever, Hillsboro (Eldon Martin and C. W. Krohl, Chicago, of counsel), for appellant.
Otto E. Funk, State's Atty., Hillsboro, for appellee.
Appellant, Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company, paid before due date, in two equal installments, the taxes extended against its property in Montgomery County for 1958. Its first payment of one-half the total tax bill was receipted by the relator-treasurer and ex-officio collector on June 1, 1959, and it is undisputed that this payment was accompanied by a notice protesting certain extended rates as well as 45 percent of the total tax bill on the ground of excessive and illegal assessment. The second half of the total tax bill was received by relator on August 24, 1959, and relator issued his official receipt for both installments showing $16,133.70 of a total bill of $33,939.10 paid under protest.
The railroad filed its written objections and application for refund which was subsequently twice amended. Prior to a hearing on the merits relator moved to dismiss the objections, alleging that the protest notice did not substantially comply with the requirements of section 194 of the Revenue Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1957, chap. 120, par. 675,), and that it does not appear that the payment of the second installment was accompanied by a written notice of protest. The trial court sustained the motion to dismiss and overruled objector's motion to vacate this order. Objector appeals directly here on the ground that the revenue is involved.
The order which the railroad sought to vacate found only that 'Objector did not pay its taxes extended for the year 1958 under protest as required by law and that therefore its Objections to the Taxes extended for the year 1958 cannot be properly heard herein.'
The applicable provisions of the Revenue Act of 1939 are sections 194 and 235. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1957, pars. 675, 716). The former, so far as pertinent, provides for payment under protest of taxes on real estate and that such payment shall be accompanied by a writing (referred to in the parties' briefs as the notice of protest) substantially in the form set forth in the statute. Section 235 provides the procedure upon subsequent hearing of the tax objections. It specifically states:
'The court shall examine said list, and if defense (specifying, in writing, the particular cause of objection) be offered by any person interested in any of said lands or lots, to the entry of judgment against the same, the court shall hear and determine the matter in a summary manner, without pleadings, and shall pronounce judgment as the right of the case may be: Provided, that no person shall be permitted to offer any such defense unless such writing specifying the particular cause of objection shall be accompanied by an official original or duplicate tax collector's receipt, showing that all taxes to which objection is made have been paid under protest pursuant to the provisions of section 194 of this Act; and it shall be the duty of all tax collectors to furnish such duplicate receipt without charge.'
We have heretofore stated in People ex rel. Darr v. Alton Railroad Co., 380 Ill. 380, 385, 43 N.E.2d 964, 966: 'The statute (sec. 194) does not require that the objections to a tax shall be set forth in the notice of protest with the same particularity as an objection would be pleaded in a court action.' As later pointed out in People ex rel. Anderson v. Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad Co., 399 Ill. 520, 525, 78 N.E.2d 265, 267: 'The requirements for payment and protest are contained in section 194, so that the collector may perform certain duties and omit the property on which taxes are paid under protest from the delinquent list, before making application for judgment; and such payment and protest, to enable the collector to do this, we held in such case (380 Ill. 380, 43 N.E.2d 964) was mandatory.'
The written protest is captioned: 'Payment under Protest-Taxes as Appear on Railroad Tax Book for the Year 1958, Montgomery County, Illinois'. It includes both specific rate objections and a separate objection based on excessive and illegal assessed valuation. The former specify the taxing districts to the levies of which rate objections are made, the nature of the levies, the original amount of the tax due and the amount of such tax objected to. The objection as to assessed valuation states that 'the taxpayer hereby protests $15,295.10, which represents 45% of each of the original levies, or amounts of taxes, payable by it to each and every taxing district in the county, * * *'.
The collector contends the notice does not substantially comply with the form prescribed by section 194 because: (a) it does not state the original amount of tax; (b) it does not contain the amount of payment; (c) it does not inform the collector as to the amount of the payment to which objection is made; (d) it is not confined to the amount of taxes actually paid. Contentions (b) and (c) were not stated in the motion to dismiss which the trial court allowed. We have, however, considered their merits in determining the propriety of the dismissal order. In re Estate of Leichtenberg, 7 Ill.2d 545, 131 N.E.2d 487.
As to (a) it is necessary to say only that a simple mathematical calculation, based upon the statement in the protest that $15,295.10 represents 45% of the total tax, will readily indicate the dollar amount of total tax. A failure to include the result of such computation in the protest cannot fairly be said to require dismissal of the objections. Contention (b) does not appear substantial since the collector receipted for the amount of the payment (1/2 of the amount determined in (a)) when he issued his official receipt showing payment. Contention (c) relates to the lack of information as to the amount of payment as to which objection is made; again, the written protest gives all information required to determine this in readily ascertainable fashion; the total dollar amounts of the rate objections, and the dollar and percentage amounts of the assessment objections, are set forth with specific directions as to computing the total amount protested, and we note the collector calculated and withheld the correct amounts from distribution to the taxing bodies. The essence of the collector's argument in contention (d) is that a protest can be made only as to the portion of the tax paid at the time of protest-that, since objector paid only 1/2 of the tax on June 1, only 1/2 of the total amount objected to could then be protested-and since the notice...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People ex rel. Jones v. Adams
...receipts proved that the defendants had, indeed, paid their real estate taxes under protest. See People ex rel. Wisdom v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad, 32 Ill.2d 434, 206 N.E.2d 702. Thus, if the circuit court had granted the collector's motion to dismiss the objections unaccompani......
-
Korzen v. Commercial Stamping & Forging, Inc.
...has repeatedly stated that the prepayment requirement of these sections is mandatory. (People ex rel. Wisdom v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R.R. Co. (1965), 32 Ill.2d 434, 436, 206 N.E.2d 702, 704; People ex rel Anderson v. Chicago & Eastern Illinois R.R. Co. (1948), 399 Ill. 520, 526, 78 ......
- Village of Creve Coeur v. Industrial Commission, 38810
-
County Collector v. Goldman
...the amount and origin or the protested tax and the grounds for that protest complies with Section 675. See People ex rel. Wisdom v. C.B. & Q. R.R., 32 Ill.2d 434, 206 N.E.2d 702. In the present case, the objectors stated the volume numbers, item numbers and amounts paid on each item protest......