Potter v. Armstrong

• Decision Date: 14 December 1942
• Docket Number: 14970.
• Citation: 110 Colo. 198,132 P.2d 788
• Parties: POTTER v. ARMSTRONG, State Treasurer.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

132 P.2d 788

110 Colo. 198

POTTER v. ARMSTRONG, State Treasurer.

No. 14970.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

December 14, 1942

Error to District Court, Otero County; Harry Leddy, Judge.

Action by Charles M. Armstrong, as Treasurer of the State of Colorado, against Delos D. Potter for service taxes penalties, and interest, and for an accounting. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.

B. F Reed, of Denver, for plaintiff in error.

Gail L Ireland, Atty. Gen., H. Lawrence Hinkley, Deputy Atty. Gen and George K. Thomas, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

KNOUS, Justice.

The questions involved in this review relate to the liability of plaintiff in error for the payment of service taxes under the provisions of chapter 240, S.L.1937, and chapter 158 S.L.1939. Both acts are involved by the circumstance that an undisclosed portion of the tax in controversy allegedly accrued under the 1937 Act and the remainder under that of 1939. The action was instituted by defendant in error State Treasurer against plaintiff in error, to whom we shall refer hereinafter as the defendant. After asserting that the Treasurer was charged with the duty of enforcing the provisions of the above laws, it is set forth in the complaint that defendant, who is a lawyer although such is not alleged, had performed services of a professional nature upon a fee basis within the state, during a period ending May 31, 1939, for consideration in the gross amount of $1449.71 that by reason for the statutes aforesaid, there had become 'due on account thereof, a service tax of two per cent or the sum of $29.00, which the said defendant as required by said Public Revenue Service Tax Act of Colorado has failed, neglected and refused and still fails, neglects and refuses to collect from the beneficiaries and remit to the Treasurer of the State of Colorado; that the said defendant by reason of his failure, neglect and refusal to remit said tax as aforesaid by virtue of said service tax acts of the State of Colorado, became and now is subject to penalties and interest thereon; that said penalties and interest thereon amount to the sum of eight and 88/100 dollars ($8.88), and that there is now due and owing the State of Colorado on account of the aforesaid, the sum of thirty seven and 88/100 dollars ($37.88) * * * that demand has been made upon the said defendant for said sum and the same refused, and that the defendant does now continue to refuse to pay said sum, or any part thereof.' It is further alleged in the complaint that notwithstanding defendant has continued to practice his profession since May 31, 1939, and has received fees in connection therewith, he has remitted no tax thereon and has failed to make returns to the Treasurer showing the amounts of taxable service so performed and that by reason thereof, without an accounting, the Treasurer is unable to ascertain the amount of the tax due the State. The prayer of the complaint was for judgment for $37.88 with interest and for an accounting. The answer, which incorporated a general demurrer as the first defense, admitted the performance of professional services in the amount alleged by the complaint; the demand for the tax and defendant's refusal to collect the same from the recipients of his service, or pay the same to the state, and by way of conclusion denied his liability therefor under the statute. The third defense alleged that the provisions of the Service Tax Acts purporting to compel the defendant to act as collector of taxes for the State Treasurer, were unconstitutional and void because of violations in such particular of the provisions of sections 3, 7, 25 and 26 of Article II of the Colorado Constitution, and section 1, Amendment Article XIII, and section 1, Amendment Article XIV of the Constitution of the United States.

The Attorney General, appearing for the Treasurer, demurred 'to the answer * * * and particularly to the third defense thereof' for the reason that the same did not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense. The demurrer was sustained and upon defendant's election to stand on his answer, judgment was entered against him for $37.88 and interest. No judgment was entered with respect to the accounting sought by the complaint and hence no occasion arises for any expression from us as to the availability to the state of such remedy in the circumstance alleged.

Section 5(e) of the acts, the validity of which is not challenged, expressly provides that professional services rendered by attorneys at law shall be taxable. Also pertinent to the controversy are the following provisions of the service tax acts:

Section 6, 1937 Act (Subdivision (a), 1939 Act): 'Every person rendering or performing services shall be liable and responsible for the payment of the entire amount of the said two (2) per cent tax imposed and payable upon his total taxable services rendered or performed, and shall, Before the fifteenth day of each month make a return to the state treasurer for the preceding calendar month, and remit all taxes collected and due the state from him, to the state treasurer, less three (3) per cent thereof to cover the expense of the person rendering or performing services in the collection and remittance of said tax. * * *'

Section 2, subdivision (e) (1937 and 1939 Acts): 'The term 'taxpayer' shall mean any person obligated to account to the state treasurer for taxes collected or to be collected or due the state under the terms of this act.'

Section 2, subdivision (f) (1937 and 1939 Acts): 'The term 'tax' means either the tax payable by the person procuring or for whose benefit a service is rendered or performed subject to tax, or the aggregate amount of taxes due from the person rendering, performing or furnishing services during the period for which he is required to report his collections, as the context may require.'

In case of the failure of the person performing the taxable services to remit, the law (section 12(b) provides that the treasurer on the basis of the information available to him may make an assessment of the tax against the party so failing to remit, and further provides that in the event the delinquency continues for a period of ten days thereafter, the assessment shall become final unless the delinquent taxpayer shall file a petition for a revision or modification of such assessment with the treasurer within such period.

In addition to other provisions for the collection of the tax section 12(g) of the 1939 Act provides that: 'The state treasurer may also treat any such taxes, penalties or interest due and unpaid as a debt due the state from the vendor. In case of failure to...