State ex rel. Mickey v. Drexel
| Decision Date | 22 February 1906 |
| Docket Number | 14,419 |
| Citation | 107 N.W. 110,75 Neb. 751 |
| Parties | STATE, EX REL. JOHN H. MICKEY, RELATOR, v. JOHN C. DREXEL, COUNTY CLERK, RESPONDENT |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
ORIGINAL application for a writ of mandamus to compel respondent to list for taxation the reserve funds of certain beneficiary associations. Writ denied.
WRIT DENIED.
Norris Brown, Attorney General, and W. T. Thompson, for relator.
W. W Slabaugh and Brome & Burnett, contra.
The relator as a citizen and taxpayer of the state has applied to this court for a writ of mandamus to compel the respondent, who is county clerk of Douglas county, "to insert in and extend upon the tax roll and list of Douglas county, Nebraska, for taxation the assessed value of the personal properties consisting of the reserve funds of the Sovereign Camp of the Woodmen of the World, a fraternal-beneficiary association, commonly known as the "Woodmen of the World," and also to insert in and extend upon the tax roll and list of Douglas county, Nebraska, for the current year the assessed value of the personal properties consisting of the reserve funds of the Supreme Forest of the Woodmen Circle, a fraternal-beneficiary association commonly known as the "Woodmen Circle." It is alleged in the alternative writ that the property in question was "duly and legally listed and assessed for taxation for the current year by the county assessor of said Douglas county, the listed or real and the assessed valuation being fixed by said assessor as follows:
Real value
Assessed value.
Sovereign Camp, Woodmen of
the World
$ 2,036,651
$ 407,330
Supreme Forest, Woodmen
Circle
200,886
40,177"
This allegation is denied in the return to the writ. It appears that these associations in listing their property for assessment in 1905, after listing other property as assessable, stated the amount of these reserve funds held by them respectively and claimed them exempt from taxation.
1. It is contended that these funds are exempt from taxation. This question is involved in another case, now pending in this court and soon to be heard. It does not appear to be necessary to a determination of this case, and we will therefore consider this case upon the theory that such funds are taxable under our statute, leaving that question for further consideration hereafter.
2. It is contended in the brief that the county assessor in the first instance assessed these reserve funds. This contention seems to be so plainly contradicted by the record as to deserve but little consideration. The Woodmen of the World in their return to the assessor listed four items of property:
(1)
Furniture, fixtures and supplies
$ 5,000.00
(2)
Credits with banks, after allowing for
all outstanding checks
402,189.06
(3)
Securities in safety deposit vaults in
city of Omaha
$ 2,018,597.55
(4)
Gross receipts
And the return of the association to the assessor shows that each of these items is of the value at which it was listed. There was no controversy or question about this. The item "fixtures and furniture" was numbered 82 in the return of the company to the assessor, and the item "gross receipts" was numbered 78. The assessor valued number 78, $ 33,340, $ 1 less than the gross receipts returned by the association; and valued the item 82 "office fixtures and furniture, $ 5,000," the amount returned by the association as item "82, office fixtures and furniture." He extended 20 per cent. of these two amounts as the value to be assessed. In his oral examination the assessor made some attempts at evasion, but this evidence, if competent at all for the purpose, was altogether too indefinite to contradict the record which he had made. The record as to the assessment of the Woodmen Circle is equally conclusive. The return made by these associations to the assessor, the action of the assessor thereon, the proceedings of the state board, and the proceedings of the county board of equalization, all conclusively show that the only question in regard to the assessment of these two associations was the simple legal question as to whether the reserve funds were liable to taxation. The assessor assessed the property listed by these companies as assessable, but did not assess these reserve funds. This matter being brought to the attention of the state board of equalization, that board directed "that the properties aforesaid be listed, assessed and added to the tax rolls of said county for taxation by said county assessor for said year, in the manner provided by law." This was done on the 2d day of August, 1905. The county assessor thereupon added this property to the tax rolls and assessed the same.
3. The next question controverted by the parties arises out of this action. Section 129, article I, chapter 77, Compiled Statutes 1903 (Ann. St. 10528), provides that the state board of equalization and assessment "shall have general direction and control of the county assessors in the performance of their duties, and shall direct the same," and section 113 of the act (Ann. St. 10512) provides: "The county assessor shall obey all rules and regulations made under this act and the instructions sent out by the state board of equalization and assessment." The question is raised and discussed whether these and other similar provisions in the statute give the state board of equalization and assessment power to control the judgment of the county assessor upon the values of property, or upon the question of the liability of property to assessment; or whether the powers of the state board relate rather to the manner of performing the duties of the assessor and the formalities to be observed by him. "The state board of equalization cannot deal with individual assessments, nor take into consideration inequalities as between individual taxpayers, but it deals only with the values of the taxable property of a county as a whole." Hacker v. Howe, 72 Neb. 385.
It surely will not be contended that the state board can direct the county assessor as to what valuation he shall put upon property, and so accomplish indirectly what the board cannot do directly. It has no power to hear complaints that individual assessments are too high or too low. This duty is left to the county board, and its action thereon cannot be reviewed by the state board. When property is listed by the owners, and is claimed by them to be exempt from taxation the assessor must, no doubt, determine in the first...
To continue reading
Request your trial