South Spring Ranch & Cattle Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization
| Decision Date | 05 February 1914 |
| Citation | 139 P. 159,18 N.M. 531,1914 -NMSC- 011 |
| Parties | SOUTH SPRING RANCH & CATTLE CO. ET AL. v. STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
The State Board of Equalization has power to equalize the valuations of property for taxation purposes by classes, both as between classes in the same county and as between counties throughout the state, and the fact that the action taken results in the increase or decrease of total valuations in the state is immaterial.
Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.
Where a statute empowers a state board to equalize valuations for taxation, but does not point out the mode, any reasonable and efficient mode may be adopted to accomplish the end in view.
The statute fixing the time and place of a meeting of the State Board of Equalization is notice to taxpayers that the board will meet and perform only lawful acts and not that it will do illegal things.
As used in Laws 1913, c. 84, § 23, providing that the district attorney shall, on complaint, submit an assessment to the district court for correction to avoid injustice to the taxpayer, the word "injustice" is apparently the broadest term that could have been employed in the connection, and applies to any overvaluation of the property of a taxpayer.
So long as the taxpayer is not assessed more than the law provides and there is no well-defined scheme of discrimination or fraudulent action, he cannot complain on certiorari of an action of the State Board of Equalization.
Original petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court by the South Spring Ranch & Cattle Company, a corporation, and others, to review an action of the State Board of Equalization. Petition and writ dismissed.
J. M Hervey, of Roswell, and Renehan & Wright and H. S. Bowman all of Santa Fé, for plaintiffs.
Frank W. Clancy, Atty. Gen.,
and Ira L. Grimshaw, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant.
This is a proceeding by certiorari to review the action of the State Board of Equalization in attempting to equalize the valuation of property for the purposes of taxation. It is admitted by counsel on both sides that the proceeding by certiorari in this jurisdiction is confined within its common-law limits; there being no statute enlarging the scope of the remedy. The question, then, is whether the Board of Equalization had power or jurisdiction to do what it has done. If the board had the power and jurisdiction to do what was done, it will be assumed in this discussion that the action was correct, at least that it is not subject to review for mere error.
The state board made an order attempting to equalize the valuation of property throughout the state, for the purposes of taxation. The order made decreases valuations in every county in the state, save one; said decreases aggregating $1,585,590. They made increases in every county in the state; the said increases amounting to $9,233,673. This leaves a net increase of valuation of $7,648,083. The details of said action, in so far as they relate to increases, are best shown by the following table, viz.:
It is ordered by the board that the following raises be made on different classes of taxable property in the various counties of the state; such percentage or raise being upon the valuation of properties now appearing upon the tax roll as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- County % Agricultural Imps. % Grazing Imps. % Timber % Coal % City and Imps. % Lands. Amount. Lands. Amount. Lands. Lands. Town Amount. Amount. Amount. Amount. Amount. Lots, Amount. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bernalillo .. 20 $ 56,859 $19,254 20 $ 42,604 $ 1,366 0 $...... 0 $..... 20 $298,082 $303,200 20 Chaves ...... 25 395,892 59,774 20 74,153 33,298 0 ...... 0 ..... 25 141,512 212,180 20 Colfax ...... 25 124,537 26,243 30 293,042 45,416 0 ...... 0 ..... 20 61,059 144,500 20 Curry ....... 20 102,044 38,616 0 ........ ....... 0 ...... 0 ..... 0 ....... ....... 20 Dona Ana ..... 0 ........ ....... 0 ........ ....... 0 ...... 0 ..... 0 ....... ....... 20 Eddy ........ 10 113,234 9,544 0 ........ ....... 0 ...... 0 ..... 0 ....... ....... 20 Grant ........ 0 ........ ....... 0 ........ ....... 0 ...... 0 ..... 0 ....... ....... 20 Guadalupe .... 0 ........ ....... 0 ........ ....... 0 ...... 0 ..... 0 ....... ....... 20 Lincoln ...... 0 ........ ....... 0 ........ ....... 0 ...... 0 ..... 0 ....... ....... 20 Luna ........ 20 58,285 6,670 0 ........ ....... 0 ...... 0 ..... 10 22,854 22,031 20 McKinley ..... 0 ........ ....... 20 93,555 3,609 10 4,500 0 ..... 10 8,821 17,482 20 Mora ........ 25 82,926 8,412 20 64,264 5,695 10 342 0 ..... 0 ....... ....... 20 Otero ........ 0 ........ ....... 0 ........ ....... 0 ...... 0 ..... 0 ....... ....... 20 Quay ......... 0 ........ ....... 10 62,094 12,776 0 ...... 0 ..... 0 ....... ....... 20 Rio Arriba ... 0 ........ ....... 20 83,241 47 10 3,962 0 ..... 0 ....... ....... 20 Roosevelt ... 20 140,774 20,391 0 ........ ....... 0 ...... 0 ..... 10 11,319 8,523 20 Sandoval ..... 0 ........ ....... 20 79,911 2,315 20 1,082 0 ..... 0 ....... ....... 20 San Juan ..... 0 ........ ....... 0 ........ ....... 0 ...... 0 ..... 0 ....... ....... 20 San Miguel .. 30 204,724 15,875 25 174,813 6,189 10 2,100 0 ..... 20 67,374 135,677 20 Santa Fé ... 20 46,201 20,281 0 ........ ....... 0 ...... 0 ..... 20 37,359 76,672 20 Sierra ....... 0 ........ ....... 0 ........ ....... 0 ...... 0 ..... 0 ....... ....... 20 Socorro ...... 0 ........ ....... 20 109,666 12,987 0 ..... 20 733 0 ....... ....... 20 Taos ........ 25 66,128 12,603 20 50,821 1,679 15 884 0 ..... 10 485 303 20 Torrance ..... 0 ........ ....... 0 ........ ....... 0 ...... 0 ..... 0 ....... ....... 20 Union ........ 0 ........ ....... 0 ........ ....... 0 ...... 0 ..... 0 ....... ....... 20 Valencia ..... 0 ........ ....... 20 147,940 1,836 10 18,931 0 ..... 0 ....... ....... 20 $1,391,604 $237,663 $1,276,104 $127,213 $31,801 $ 733 $648,865 $920,568 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An analysis of this table discloses that the state board raised valuations of property according to classes, and by means of certain percentages in each instance. In the case of about half in number of the different classes of property, the valuations were raised in some counties, and not raised in others. For instance, in the counties of Dona Ana, Grant, Guadalupe, and Lincoln, no raises were made upon agricultural lands, grazing lands, timber lands, coal lands, and city town lots, while in most of the other counties the valuation of these classes of property, or some of them, were raised in considerable amounts. The valuation of other classes of property was raised in every county in the state where any of said property had been returned and appeared on the tax rolls. This appears to be the case in regard to carriages and wagons, saddles and harness, merchandise, saloon and office fixtures, watches, clocks, jewelry, musical instruments, household goods, automobiles, and a general class listed as "other property."
These raises of valuation are from 20 to 100 per cent. This evidently presents two fundamental bases upon which the action of the board must have been taken, viz.: First, the board raised the valuation of a particular class of property in a given county, or counties, to the same valuation at which it was listed for taxation in some other given county; second, the board raised the valuation of given classes of property to the same comparative valuation of other classes of property, both in the same county and elsewhere throughout the state. This must be taken as the true effect of what the board did. For instance, when they raised the valuation of agricultural lands 20 per cent. in Bernalillo, Chaves, Colfax, Curry, Eddy, Luna, Mora, Roosevelt, San Miguel, Santa Fé, and Taos, counties, and failed to raise the valuation of the same classes of property in the counties of Dona Ana, Grant, Guadalupe, Lincoln, McKinley, Otero, Quay, Rio Arriba, Sandoval, San Juan, Sierra, Socorro, Torrance, Union, and Valencia, it is to be assumed that said raise in said valuation was to equalize the valuation of said class of property in the counties first named, with its valuation in the other counties named. But when the board raised the valuation of carriages and wagons 20 per cent. in every county in the state, it necessarily did so for the purpose of equalizing the valuation of this class of property with the valuation by it put upon agricultural lands, for instance, throughout the state.
We have, then, a case where the board has equalized the valuation of property between classes, and, having fixed thereby a comparative standard of valuation, they have attempted to bring up to that same standard all other classes of property in the state. Whether this is exactly the method employed by the board in arriving at this conclusion does not specifically appear in the return, but, at any rate, this is the necessary consequence of what was done.
This state of affairs would seem to present two questions for discussion, viz.: (1) Has the State Board of Equalization power to adjust and equalize the valuation of property by classes for the purposes of taxation? (2) If so, and the action results in increasing the total valuation in counties or in the state at large, is the action justified?
...
To continue reading
Request your trial