State ex rel. Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Henneford, 27889.

• Decision Date: 01 March 1940
• Docket Number: 27889.
• Citation: 99 P.2d 616,3 Wn.2d 48
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE ex rel. NORTHERN PAC. RY. CO. v. HENNEFORD et al., Tax Commissioners.

99 P.2d 616

3 Wn.2d 48

STATE ex rel. NORTHERN PAC. RY. CO. v. HENNEFORD et al., Tax Commissioners.

No. 27889.

Supreme Court of Washington

March 1, 1940

Department 2.

Original application for a writ of mandate by the State of Washington on the relation of Northern Pacific Railway Company, a corporation, against H. H. Henneford, T. S. Hedges, and T. M Jenner, Tax Commissioners of the state of Washington.

Writ issued.

Robert S. Macfarlane, Dean H. Eastman, and Earl F Requa, all of Seattle, for relator.

G. W. Hamilton and R. G. Sharpe, both of Olympia, for respondents.

JEFFERS Justice.

This is an original application by the Northern Pacific Railway Company for a writ of mandate, to compel the tax commission of the state of Washington, and the tax commissioners, to forthwith transmit to the relator, the county assessor and the county auditor of Thurston county, certified copies of tax commission order No. 14, which was made and entered by the commission on October 17, 1939.

The relator, as provided by chapter 16, page 42, Laws of 1939, filed with the county assessor of Thurston county a petition, alleging that it was the owner of block 344, Olympia First Class Tidelands; that the county assessor, through manifest error, had incorrectly extended upon his tax rolls, and assessed against relator, taxes for the year 1938, upon a building of an assessed value of $375, which purportedly was located on such property; that the assessed value of the property, including land and the alleged building, for the year 1938, was $1,125; that the tax extended on this valuation, in the sum of $63.16, was paid by relator on March 22, 1939; that in fact there was no building on the property, and by virtue of this fact, the assessed value should be reduced to $750, and the tax reduced to $42.44. Relator prayed for a correction of the tax roll, and a refund of $21.22, together with interest thereon from March 22, 1939.

Relator further alleged that thereafter the county assessor investigated relator's petition, signed and certified that the facts alleged in the petition were true, and recommended that the petition be granted; that the petition was then transmitted to the county treasurer, who certified that the tax in the sum of $63.66 had been paid on March 22, 1939; that thereafter the petition was approved and signed by the prosecuting attorney of Thurston county, and by him transmitted to the tax commission, with his recommendation that it be granted; that thereafter, and on October 17, 1939, the state tax commission made and entered its order No. 14, granting relator's prayer for relief in full, ordering that the assessed value of the property be reduced to $750, and the tax to $42.44, and directing the county auditor to draw a warrant in favor of relator for the sum of $21.22, plus interest; that relator has made demand upon the tax commission to transmit certified copies of such order to the relator, the county assessor and county auditor, but such demand has been refused, and the commission still refuses to forward such certified copies of its order.

Upon the filing of the petition, an alternative writ of mandate was issued by this court, requiring the tax commission to transmit certified copies of its order, as prayed for by relator, or appear and show cause why it had not done so.

The tax commission made and filed a return to the writ, wherein it alleged that chapter 16, Laws of 1939, was unconstitutional, as being in violation of article I, § 12, of the state constitution, and also for the reason that it denies to persons within the state of Washington the equal protection of the laws, in violation of the fourteenth amendment of the Federal constitution U.S.C.A.

Chapter 16, page 42, Laws of 1939, is entitled 'Property Erroneously Assessed.' Section 1 thereof provides for the filing with the county assessor of a petition by a taxpayer who believes his property has been erroneously assessed.

Section 2 provides that the assessor shall investigate the petition, and if he finds that there is reasonable cause to believe that the property was erroneously assessed, and that such erroneous assessment was due to error in description, double assessment or manifest error in assessment, which does not involve a revaluation of the property, or that the tax was incorrectly extended upon the tax rolls, he shall endorse his findings upon the petition, and thereupon, and within ten days after filing the petition forward the same to the county treasurer. The section further provides that it shall be the duty of the county treasurer to endorse on the petition whether or not the tax against which the complaint has been made has been paid, and, if paid, the amount thereof, whereupon the county treasurer shall transmit the petition to the prosecuting attorney, who shall make such investigation as he deems necessary, and within ten days after receipt of the petition, transmit the same to the state tax commission, with his recommendation as to whether the petition should be granted or denied.

Section 3 provides that upon receipt of the petition, findings and recommendation, the tax commission shall proceed to consider the same, and upon the conclusion of its consideration, and within thirty days after receipt of the petition, the commission shall enter an order granting or denying the petition, and if the petition be granted, the commission may order the assessment canceled or reduced, or the extended tax corrected upon the tax rolls, in any amount it deems proper, but in no event to exceed the amount of reduction or correction recommended by the county assessor.

Section 4 provides that certified copies of the commission's order shall be forwarded to the county assessor, the county auditor and the taxpayer, and the taxpayer shall immediately be entitled to a refund of the difference, if any, between the tax already paid and the canceled or reduced or corrected tax, based upon the order of the tax commission, with legal interest on such amount from the date of payment of the original tax.

No contention is made that relator did not follow the procedure hereinabove outlined, or that the findings, recommendation and order were not made by the respective county officers and by the tax commission, as set out in relator's application for the writ, but respondent has refused to transmit certified copies of its order, contending the act is unconstitutional. This contention is based upon the provisions of § 5 of the act, which reads: 'No petition for cancellation or reduction of assessment or correction of tax-rolls and the refund of taxes based thereon under this act shall be considered if the amount of claimed erroneous or excess tax for any year involved in such petition exceeds the sum of $200 and no such petition shall be considered unless filed within three years after the challenged tax was paid.'

Respondent contends that the act is unconstitutional, in that it attempts to place aggrieved taxpayers in two classes: (a) taxpayers paying, with or without protest, erroneous or excess taxes amounting to two hundred dollars or less for any given year; and (b) taxpayers paying, with or without protest, erroneous or excess taxes amounting to more than two hundred dollars for any given year; that to class 'a' taxpayers it grants an administrative remedy with a three-year limitation; that to class 'b' taxpayers it denies any remedy whatever, either administrative or judicial, if payment was without protest, and even if payment was under protest, no remedy is awarded except by refund action brought within one year after the tax would become delinquent, if unpaid.

'In passing upon the constitutionality of a legislative enactment, several things must always be kept in mind. Courts will not sit...