Rothschild v. State Tax Com'n of Missouri, No. 70411
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | RENDLEN; BILLINGS, C.J., BLACKMAR, WELLIVER, ROBERTSON and HIGGINS, JJ., and REINHARD; DONNELLY |
| Citation | 762 S.W.2d 35 |
| Docket Number | No. 70411 |
| Decision Date | 13 December 1988 |
| Parties | Sandy ROTHSCHILD, et al., Respondents, v. STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI, et al., Appellants. |
Page 35
v.
STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI, et al., Appellants.
En Banc.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 17, 1989.
Thomas R. Schwarz, Jr., Counsel State Tax Com'n of Missouri, Richard Wieler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for appellants.
James C. Owen, Thomas W. McCarthy, III, Chesterfield, for respondents.
RENDLEN, Judge.
Respondents sought declaratory judgment to determine whether a 1986 State Tax Commission Advisory Order instructing county assessors to consolidate commonly owned dwelling units on contiguous properties in classifying real property as "commercial" or "residential" for purposes of tax assessment is a valid construction of § 137.016.1(1), RSMo 1986. 1 The circuit
Page 36
court held that § 137.016.1(1) "shall be interpreted so that 'a structure ... which contains not more than four dwelling units', regardless of the ownership or location of the property, is 'residential' property." The Tax Commission appeals, asserting that the statute should be construed to subclassify as "commercial" any real property owned by a taxpayer which is contiguous, in the same lot, block, or section, and which contains more than four dwelling units, without regard to the number of structures. This cause, involving construction of revenue laws, falls within our original appellate jurisdiction. Mo. Const. art. V, § 3. We affirm.Respondents are owners of real property in St. Louis County and the City of St. Louis affected by the Tax Commission's interpretation of § 137.016. Respondent Orchard Park Associates owns eleven separate buildings each containing four dwelling units located on the same parcel in St. Louis County which have been assessed as "commercial" property, while respondents Carl and Marie Sobery own 54 buildings containing four dwelling units, 29 of which are located on contiguous lots and which also have been assessed as "commercial" property. The parties stipulated to facts concerning certain real property owned by non-parties, some assessed "residential" and some assessed "commercial" because of the challenged Advisory Order.
The Tax Commission's Advisory Order, issued in 1986, states:
1. For assessment purposes a parcel is any portion of land individually described and listed in the County's assessment records. All contiguous land owned by the same legal entity and of a single use 2 is to be mapped as one parcel. If a parcel crosses a section line then each portion of land in different sections may be regarded as separate parcels and be assigned separate parcel numbers.
2. For purposes of determining whether a parcel is residential or commercial, the total number of dwelling units on a parcel is to be the controlling factor, not the number of dwelling units within each individual building. Thus, parcels with multiple duplexes, triplexes or quadruplexes that total five or more dwelling units are to be considered as commercial.
(Emphasis added.)
Section 137.016, which was enacted in 1983 to define the subclasses of real property created by the 1982 amendment of article X, § 4(b) of the Missouri Constitution 3, provides in pertinent part:
1. As used in section 4(b) of article X of the Missouri Constitution, the following terms mean:
(1) "Residential property", all real property improved by a structure which is used or intended to be used for residential living by human occupants and which contains not more than four dwelling units or which contains single dwelling units owned as a condominium
Page 37
or in a cooperative housing...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McQueen v. Gadberry, No. ED 103138
...and further support Gadberry's position and affirming the trial court's judgment. See Rothschild v. State Tax Com'n of Missouri, 762 S.W.2d 35, 37 (Mo. banc 1988) (in determining legislative intent, an appellate court presumes the legislature did not intend an absurd law and the court favor......
-
United of Omaha v. Business Men's Assur. Co. of America, No. 95-3185
...legislative intent from the statutory language and, if possible, to give effect to that intent. Rothschild v. State Tax Comm'n of Mo., 762 S.W.2d 35, 37 (Mo.1988) (en banc). "[W]e consider the words employed in the statute in their plain and ordinary meaning, we presume the legislature did ......
-
Abrams v. Ohio Pacific Exp., No. 73730
...immediately preceding and are not to be construed as extending to or including others more remote." Rothschild v. State Tax Comm'n, 762 S.W.2d 35, 37 (Mo. banc The sentence structure clearly indicates that "on the envelope" is adverbial, modifies "endorse," and is not an adjective modifying......
-
State ex rel. Jones v. Prokes, WD 84255
...harmonious ... is particularly applicable when the two acts are passed at the same legislative session." Rothschild v. State Tax Com'n , 762 S.W.2d 35, 37 (Mo. 1988) ; see also State ex rel. Karbe v. Bader , 336 Mo. 259, 78 S.W.2d 835, 839 (Mo. 1934) ("It is not to be presumed that the same......
-
McQueen v. Gadberry, No. ED 103138
...and further support Gadberry's position and affirming the trial court's judgment. See Rothschild v. State Tax Com'n of Missouri, 762 S.W.2d 35, 37 (Mo. banc 1988) (in determining legislative intent, an appellate court presumes the legislature did not intend an absurd law and the court favor......
-
United of Omaha v. Business Men's Assur. Co. of America, No. 95-3185
...legislative intent from the statutory language and, if possible, to give effect to that intent. Rothschild v. State Tax Comm'n of Mo., 762 S.W.2d 35, 37 (Mo.1988) (en banc). "[W]e consider the words employed in the statute in their plain and ordinary meaning, we presume the legislature did ......
-
Abrams v. Ohio Pacific Exp., No. 73730
...immediately preceding and are not to be construed as extending to or including others more remote." Rothschild v. State Tax Comm'n, 762 S.W.2d 35, 37 (Mo. banc The sentence structure clearly indicates that "on the envelope" is adverbial, modifies "endorse," and is not an adjective modifying......
-
State ex rel. Jones v. Prokes, WD 84255
...harmonious ... is particularly applicable when the two acts are passed at the same legislative session." Rothschild v. State Tax Com'n , 762 S.W.2d 35, 37 (Mo. 1988) ; see also State ex rel. Karbe v. Bader , 336 Mo. 259, 78 S.W.2d 835, 839 (Mo. 1934) ("It is not to be presumed that the same......