State ex rel. Monier v. Crawford

• Decision Date: 13 May 1924
• Docket Number: 24809
• Parties: THE STATE ex rel. ROY H. MONIER et al., Members of State Tax Commission, v. JOHN M. CRAWFORD, Assessor of Buchanan County
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

262 S.W. 341

303 Mo. 652

THE STATE ex rel. ROY H. MONIER et al., Members of State Tax Commission, v. JOHN M. CRAWFORD, Assessor of Buchanan County

No. 24809

Supreme Court of Missouri

May 13, 1924

Alternative writ quashed.

Jesse W. Barrett, Attorney-General, and J. Henry Caruthers, Assistant Attorney-General, for relators.

(1) Statutes in pari materia are those which relate to the same person or thing, or to the same class of persons or things. The acts creating the State Tax Commission and providing for assessing and collecting income tax relate to same subject-matter, namely, taxation and revenue, and should be interpreted together. 36 Cyc. 1147; State ex rel. v Clark, 54 Mo. 218; State ex rel. v. Klein, 116 Mo. 267; State ex rel. v. Slover, 126 Mo. 659; Grimes v. Reynolds, 184 Mo. 688; Glaser v Rothchild, 221 Mo. 209; Gasconade County v Gordon, 241 Mo. 582; Long v. Callaway, 68 Mo.App. 296; City of Springfield v. Starke, 93 Mo.App. 76; Black on Interpretation of Laws (2 Ed.) p. 332. (2) This rule is particularly applicable to revenue and taxation acts. 36 Cyc. 1149; Black on Interpretation of Laws (2 Ed.) p. 335; Hannibal and St. Joseph Railroad Co. v. Schacklett, 30 Mo. 556; Ross v. Railway Co., 111 Mo. 26; State v. Ebbs, 89 Mo.App. 98; United States v. Collier, 25 Fed. Cases (Case No. 14833) 530; The Viola, 59 F. 635; Ketcham, Admx. v. Hill, 42 Ind. 723. (3) It is presumed that statutes passed at the same session of the Legislature, as these here in question were, are imbued with the same spirit and actuated with the same policy. 36 Cyc. 1151; State ex rel. v. Clark, 54 Mo. 218; State ex rel. v. Patterson, 207 Mo. 144; Gasconade County v. Gordon, 241 Mo. 582; Curtwright v. Crow, 44 Mo.App. 568. (4) The two acts deal with the one subject of taxation and revenue and the two together are designed to constitute a complete system wherein the always troublesome question of assessment and taxation may be made more simple, adequate, equitable and efficient. (5) A statute must be construed with reference to the system of which it is a part. City of St. Louis v. Howard, 119 Mo. 45; State ex rel. v. Patterson, 207 Mo. 144; Sales v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co., 166 Mo. 678; Gasconade County v. Gordon, 241 Mo. 582; Black on Interpretation of Laws (2 Ed.) p. 332. (6) Statutes should not be given a construction that would render them unreasonable and absurd. This would result if the view of respondent were adopted in this case. Lumber Co. v. Railroad, 216 Mo. 672.

Culver, Phillip & Voorhees for respondent.

(1) The Commission has only such authority as is conferred upon it by the express language of the statute, and such as is necessarily implied from the powers expressly conferred. If there is any provision in either article expressly conferring such authority, relators have failed to point it out, and we have failed to find it. Nor is there any provision in either article from which such power is necessarily implied. Article 4, creating the Commission and defining its powers, became a law April 9, 1917, Laws 1917, p. 552. At that time there was no such thing known in the law of this State as an Income Tax Law. The law creating such tax, now Art. 19, R. S. 1919, was not approved until April 12, 1917, and did not become effective until June 18, 1917, Laws 1917, pp. 538, 591. It is true that both acts were passed at the same session of the Legislature, but that fact cannot change the further fact that the law creating the Commission and defining its powers, could not by necessary implication confer any power upon the Commission with respect to the enforcement of an act creating a tax upon incomes which had not become a law. To rule otherwise is to say that the Legislature knew, when it passed the law creating the Tax Commission, not only that a bill creating the income tax would inevitably receive the approval of both Senate and House, but that it would also inevitably receive the approval of the Governor, which was necessary to give it life. (2) Article 4, taken as a whole, shows upon its face that the control or supervision which the Legislature intended the Commission should exercise over the assessors in this State was only with respect to the assessment of taxes upon property, and not with respect to the assessment of the tax upon income. The tax upon income in this State is not a tax upon property. Wire Company v. Wollbrinck, 275 Mo. 339. And the Legislature itself recognized that the income tax is not a property tax, when it expressly provided that the returns made for income tax should not be used in connection with or for the purpose of assessing a "property tax." R. S. 1919, sec. 13125. Section 12847 is absolutely inconsistent with the provisions of Article 19 providing for the taxation of income, because the commission has nothing to do with the review or correction of an assessment of an income tax, that duty being reposed by the income tax law upon other offices. Section 13135 under the severe penalties therein prescribed, prohibits any assessor from permitting "any other person or persons not connected with his office to see, inspect or examine" any income tax report. The Tax Commission has no connection whatever with the office of the county assessor. The only business of the Tax Commission is with respect to the assessment of a property tax; and Section 13125 expressly provides that the income tax return cannot be used "for the purpose of assessing property tax."

OPINION

James T. Blair, J.

This is a proceeding by the State Tax Commission to compel the Assessor of Buchanan County to produce the state income tax returns on file in his office and permit them to be inspected by S. H. Smith, who is alleged to be an agent appointed by the Commission and directed by it "to confer with the various assessing officers of the State concerning their administration of the State Income Tax Law and examine the income tax returns filed in" respondent's office and "to institute proper proceedings to enforce the penalties and liabilities provided by law for public officers, officers of corporations and individuals failing to comply with the State Income Tax Law."

The question involved is one of statutory construction. Relators contend they are authorized to empower an agent to inspect and examine the returns in question and to require these to be delivered by respondent to such agent for inspection. Respondent insists the law gives relators no such power, but expressly prohibits the examination of such returns by anyone except designated persons, and that relators' agent is not among those so designated.

The Act of 1917 (Laws 1917, pp. 542-552) which first established the State Tax Commission (hereafter referred to as the Commission) was signed and took effect on April 9, 1917. At this time there was no law in this State which authorized the taxation of incomes. The State Income Tax Act (Laws 1917, pp. 524-538) was approved on April 12, 1917, and did not take effect until July 11, 1917. The act establishing and governing the Commission now appears as Article IV of Chapter 119, Sections 12828-12852, Revised Statutes 1919, unamended since its passage. Respondent's position is that Article IV clearly shows that the powers of the Commission relate solely to property taxes. Those powers are, in the main, conferred by Section 12847. It reads as follows:

"Sec. 12847. Authority of Commission -- general supervision over assessments, etc. It shall be the duty of the commission, and the commissioners shall have power and authority, subject to the right of the state board of equalization, finally to adjust and equalize the values of real and personal property among the several counties of the state, as follows:

"(1) To have and exercise general supervision over all the assessing officers of this State, over county boards of equalization and appeal in the performance of their duties, and to take such measures as will secure the enforcement of the provisions of this article, and all the properties of this State liable to assessment for taxation shall be placed upon the assessment rolls and assessed in accordance with the letter and plain provisions of the law.

"(2) To confer with and advise assessing officers as to their duties under this article and all other laws concerning revenue and taxation, and to institute proper proceedings to enforce the penalties and liabilities provided by law for public officers, officers of corporations and individuals failing to comply with the provisions of this article or of the revenue and taxation laws. In the execution of these powers the said commission shall call upon the attorney-general, or any prosecuting or circuit attorney in the State, to assist this commission in the enforcement of laws with the supervision of which this commission is charged, and when so called upon it shall be the duty of the attorney-general, and the prosecuting (or circuit attorneys in their respective counties), to assist in the commencement and prosecutions of actions and proceedings for penalties, forfeitures, removals and punishments for violation of the laws in respect to the assessment and taxation of property, and to represent the commission in any litigation which it may wish to institute or in which it may become involved in the discharge of its duties.

"(3) To receive all complaints as to property liable to taxation that has not been assessed, or that has been fraudulently or improperly assessed, to investigate the same and to institute such proceedings as will correct the irregularity complained of, if any irregularity be found to exist.

"(4) To require from any officer in this State, on forms prescribed by the commission, such annual or other reports as shall enable said commission to ascertain the assessed and...