State Bd. of Tax Com'rs v. Wright
| Decision Date | 21 June 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 20111,20111 |
| Citation | 139 Ind.App. 370,217 N.E.2d 596 |
| Parties | The STATE BOARD OF TAX COMMISSIONERS, Appellant, v. Erwin E. WRIGHT, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
John J. Dillon, Atty. Gen., Lloyd C. Hutchinson, Charles W. Rau, Deputy Attys. Gen., for appellant.
Robert F. McCrea, William T. Hornaday, Bloomington, Thomas & Thomas, Brazil, for appellee.
If the original opinion of this court in this appeal can be interpreted as conferring by legislative enactment 'indelible imprint' of non-taxability or if the opinion can be construed as holding that the legislature purported 'to perpetuate the tax exempt status' of certain property, then the opinion needs clarification. Those charges which appellant makes by petition for rehearing, we trust are not the deductions of a disinterested reader.
Our purpose in the opinion was to note that up to the time of this action the General Assembly had indicated no effort to change tax exemptions. We think and trust it is clear to all that this court has not seen nor indicated that it detected an effort by the General Assembly to bind its successors to any tax policy.
As to the principle that a long adhered to administrative interpretation may raise a presumption of legislative acquiescence, appellant seems to interpret this erroneously as a comment on appellant Board's action or lack of action in the past. As part of that argument appellant points out that there was no evidence that the State Board of Tax Commissioners ever had knowledge of and acquiesced[139 INDAPP 384] in a decision by local assessing officials or county boards of review that such subject property had been ruled by such local officials or local boards to be exempt from taxation. Appellant's assertion is correct as to the evidence. But, administrative interpretation is not limited to interpretation by appellant Board. The interpretation referred to is the interpretation of all administrative agencies. Under the legal fiction mentioned in Baker v. Compton (1965), Ind., 211 N.E.2d 162, 164, it is assumed that the legislature knows how local assessing officials and county boards of review had interpreted the exemption statutes, and it is assumed that the legislature was satisfied with that interpretation and the results thereof. Enforcement of tax laws and application of exemption statutes are not intended to be only the obligation of the State Tax Board.
Appellant questions...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Economy Oil Corp. v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue
...satisfaction with the administrative construction. State Board of Tax Commissioners v. Wright (1966), 139 Ind.App. 370, 215 N.E.2d 57, 217 N.E.2d 596; Baker v. Compton (1965), 247 Ind. 39, 211 N.E.2d 162. The Indiana Supreme Court in Baker 'We recognize the established authority that a long......
-
Indiana Alcoholic Beverage Commission v. Osco Drug, Inc.
...indicates the legislature's acquiescence in and satisfaction with the administrative construction. State Board of Tax Commissioners v. Wright (1966), 139 Ind.App. 370, 379, 217 N.E.2d 596; Baker v. Compton (1965), 247 Ind. 39, 211 N.E.2d 162. The Indiana Supreme Court in Baker "We recognize......
-
Fraternal Order of Eagles Lodge No. 255 v. Indiana State Bd. of Tax Com'rs, Ind.Tax, No. 80T05-8609-TA-00010.
...Instead the court considered case law and public policy concerns as well as the opinion of the Attorney General. Commrs. v. Wright (1966), 139 Ind.App. 370, 217 N.E.2d 596. As did the court in Methodist Home, the court in State Board of Tax Commissioners v. Adoniram Lodge of Perfection (196......
-
Indiana Dept. of State Revenue v. Endress & Hauser, Inc.
...acquiescence. Baker v. Compton, supra; State Board of Tax Commissioners v. Wright, (1966) 139 Ind.App. 370, 215 N.E.2d 57, reh. den. 217 N.E.2d 596. Appellant Department's reliance on this theory for authority to support its position that the trial court erred, therefore, is misplaced. More......