State ex rel. Williams v. Adams

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Idaho
Citation409 P.2d 415,90 Idaho 195
Docket NumberNo. 9694,9694
PartiesSTATE of Idaho ex rel. Joe R. WILLIAMS, Auditor, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Paul ADAMS, Auditor of Lemhi County, Alice Hobbs, Treasurer of Lemhi County, Defendants-Appellants.
Decision Date28 December 1965

Charles Herndon, Salmon, for appellants.

Allan G. Shepard, Atty. Gen., Larry D. Ripley, M. Allyn Dingel, Jr., and Richard E. Weston, Asst. Attys. Gen., Boise, for respondent.

SMITH, Justice.

This is an appeal from a writ of mandate compelling appellants to pay to the State Treasurer the sum of $2,106.43 as the claimed remaining portion of the state's 1962 ad valorem taxes collected by Lemhi County.

The facts as stipulated by the parties disclose that a mining company taxpayer, Misco P. C., Inc., paid under protest mine's profits tax on mining proceeds assessed pursuant to I.C. Tit. 63, ch. 28 for the years 1960 and 1961. Thereafter the taxpayer appealed the values assessed against it for both those years, through the County Board of Equalization, State Tax Commission and the Lemhi County District Court. The two appeals were consolidated for trial and heard March 18, 1963, by the court sitting without a jury. At the conclusion of the hearing the parties stitulated that the court enter its order pursuant to I.C. § 63-2214 1 directing the Lemhi County tax collector to pay $38,348.48 as refund of taxes erroneously collected and paid by Misco P. C., Inc., and it successor Howe Sound Company, for the years 1960 and 1961, for net profits tax of 1959 and 1960.

The court then dismissed the appeals. It thereupon entered judgment on March 18, 1963, adjudging that Lemhi County refund 1963, adjudging that Lemhi County refund and pay such sum to Howe Sound Company; also ordered that the refund be apportioned and charged to the various taxing units involved, one of which was the State of Idaho. The amount so apportioned and charged back to the state against its share of taxes for those years was $2,106.43.

Prior to the hearing of the appeals as consolidated, appellants had paid to the State Treasurer, the state's share of its taxes apportioned to Lemhi County for the years 1960 and 1961, including the amount of $2,106.43 as the state's share of the erroneously assessed mine's profits tax, before it was adjusted by the court's decree.

On April 10, 1963, appellant Adams, as Lemhi County auditor, wrote to the State Treasurer inquiring how the State Treasurer wished to handle the refund inasmuch as the County had paid the total state assessment for the years 1960 and 1961. The Treasurer replied that the county auditor should pay the refund out of moneys received to be applied to the 'current assessment'; and instructed that when reporting the moneys received, the county auditor 'would make note on the county remittance form of the total received less the refund, and send us [State Treasurer] the balance.' Appellant county auditor followed those instructions and took the credit of $2,106.43 for the state's ad valorem tax for the years 1960 and 1961 standing of record on the books of the county auditor and deducted such amount from the total ad valorem taxes due the State for the year 1962.

On March 31, 1964, respondent demanded of appellants that they 'forward the remaining 1962 state ad valorem tax due the State of Idaho from Lemhi County in the amount of $2,106.43.' Upon appellants' refusal to make the payment demanded, respondent commenced this mandamus proceeding to compel the payment. The matter was submitted to the trial court upon stipulated facts. The court thereupon ordered that the alternative writ which had theretofore been issued commanding appellants to remit to the State Treasurer 'the remaining State ad valorem taxes in the amount of $2,106.43, * * * for the year 1962,' be made permanent. The permanent writ issued accordingly. Enforcement of the writ was stayed pending this appeal.

In granting the writ the trial court concluded: that mandamus was the proper remedy; that I.C. Tit. 63, ch .28, entitled, 'Taxation of profits of mines' is the method of determining the value of ore produced for the purpose of assessing this ore for ad valorem taxes; that I.C. § 63-902 applies to ad valorem taxes levied on mine profits; that once the amount of the state ad valorem taxes due the state for a particular year is fixed by the State Tax Commission in accordance with I.C. § 63-611, the taxes cannot thereafter be changed by subsequent changes in assessed valuation or by court order; that once a county has paid to the State Treasurer the amount of taxes due the State, they cannot be refunded to the county or paid out of the State Treasury without a legislative appropriation for that purpose; and, that the appellants county auditor and county treasurer have a mandatory nondiscretionary duty to forward the taxes collected for the State for the year of 1962, without deduction.

The basic issue raised by appellants' assignments of error is whether appellants, auditor and treasurer of Lemhi County, can deduct the overpayment of $2,106.43 of the state's share of taxes collected for the years 1960 and 1961, from the state's share of taxes collected for the year 1962, in which year there is no dispute as to the amount of taxes due the state from the county. The record shows that Lemhi County has paid over to the State Treasurer the state's share of taxes apportioned to Lemhi County for the year 1962, except a balance of $2,106.43 which is now in the county's treasury.

The mandatory duty of appellants, on behalf of Lemhi County, to pay over to the State Treasury the state's proportionate share of the 1962 taxes levied for state purposes, is set forth in Idaho Const. art. 7, § 7. 2 Under such section of the Constitution each county is liable for the full amount of its proportionate share of taxes levied for state purposes and such taxes shall be paid into the State Treasury without any deduction. Epperson v. Howell, 28 Idaho 338, 154 P. 621 (1916); Wickersham v. County Commissioners of Elmore County (Wickersham v. Manion), 4 Idaho 137, 36 P. 700 (1894); Guheen v. Curtis, 3 Idaho 443, 31 P. 805 (1892); Cunningham v. Moody, 3 Idaho 125, 28 P. 395 (1891). See also I.C. § 63-902. 3 It is clear that a county cannot withhold moneys collected on behalf of the state, as ad valorem taxes, in satisfaction of a claim against the state, incurred in prior years. Moreover, while the Lemhi County District Court, by its order, directed Lemhi County to pay $38,348.48 by way of refund of 1960 and 1961 taxes erroneously assessed against and paid by Misco P. C., Inc., and Howe Sound Company, and approved the apportionment to the State of Idaho of $2,106.43 of the refund, nevertheless the court did not order that the county's charge against the state in such sum be credited by the county against the state's apportionment of taxes collected by the county for the year 1962 or thereafter.

Nor can the state be estopped from claiming and collecting from the county such sums as the balance of the amount of the 1962 taxes apportioned to and collected by the county, even though representatives of the State Tax Commission and of the office of the Attorney General were present and were consulted at various stages of the hearings on the mining company's tax appeals. Equitable estoppel may not ordinarily be invoked against a governmental or public agency functioning in a sovereign or governmental capacity. Comptroller of the Treasury, etc. v. Atlas General Industries, 234 Md. 77, 198 A.2d 86 (1964); Cunningham v. County Court of Wood County, 148 W.Va. 303, 134 S.E.2d 725 (1964); Pet Car Products, Inc. v. Barnett, 150 Conn. 42, 184 A.2d 797 (1962); Maryland Casualty Co. v. Magoffin County Bd. of Ed., 358 S.W.2d 353 (Ky.1962); Hatchitt v. United States, 158 F.2d 754 (9th Cir.1946); 31 C.J.S. Estoppel §§ 138-142; Anno. 1 A.L.R.2d 338.

'In the levy and imposition of taxes, the state acts in its sovereign capacity, and hence, in an action for the collection thereof, cannot be subjected to an quitable estoppel.' Spratt v. Hatfield, 267 Minn. 535, 538, 127 N.W.2d 545, 548 (1964); Comptroller of the Treasury, etc. v. Atlas General Industries, supra; Lutheran Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Robinson, 117 Ohio App. 9, 189 N.E.2d 449 (1962); Heyward v. South Carolina Tax Commission, 240 S.C. 347, 126 S.E.2d 15 (1962); Duhame v. State Tax Commission, 65 Ariz. 268, 179 P.2d 252, 171 A.L.R. 684 (1947); Shriver v. Board of County Com'rs of Sedgwick Co., 189 Kan. 548, 370 P.2d 124 (1962).

The government is not estopped by previous acts or conduct of its agents with reference to the determination of tax liabilities or by failure to collect the tax, nor will the mistakes or misinformation of its officers estop it from collecting the tax. State Tax Commission v. Johnson, 75 Idaho 105, 269 P.2d 1080 (1954); Fitzpatrick v. State Tax Commission, 15 Utah 2d 29, 386 P.2d 896 (1963); Tennessee Trailways, Inc. v. Butler, 213 Tenn. 136, 373 S.W.2d 201 (1963); Good Will Industries of Southern California v. Los Angeles County, 117 Cal.App.2d 19, 254 P.2d 877 (1953); Claiborne Sales Company v. Collector of Revenue, 233 La. 1061, 99 So.2d 345 (1957); Duhame v. State Tax Commission, supra.

Appellants assign error of the trial court in concluding that mandamus is the proper remedy in this cause. I.C. § 7-302 in part provides:

'It [the writ of mandate] may be issued by any court except a justice's or probate court, to any inferior tribunal, corporation, board or person, to compel the performance of an act which the law especially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station; * * *.' (Emphasis supplied.)

Mandamus will lie if the party seeking it has a clear legal right to have the act done for which he seeks the writ, and it is the clear duty of the officer to act. Vandenberg v. Welker, 74 Idaho 508, 264 P.2d 1029 (1953). See also Freeman v. McQuade, 80 Idaho 387, 331 P.2d 263 (1958); Wilson v. Nielson, 75...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Brandt v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Idaho
    • April 29, 1994
    ...437, 680 P.2d 537, 538 (1984); Harrell v. City of Lewiston, 95 Idaho 243, 247-48, 506 P.2d 470, 474-75 (1973); State v. Adams, 90 Idaho 195, 201, 409 P.2d 415, 419 (1965). But see Curry v. Ada County Highway District, 103 Idaho 818, 654 P.2d 911 (1982) (applying equitable estoppel to a high......
  • Leonardson v. Moon
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • March 5, 1969
    ...Epperson v. Howell, 28 Idaho 338, 154 P. 621 (1916); McConnel v. Gallet, 51 Idaho 386, 6 P.2d 143 (1931); State ex rel. Williams v. Adams, 90 Idaho 195, 409 P.2d 415 (1965). These cases define an appropriation as (1) authority from the legislature, (2) expressly given, (3) in legal form, (4......
  • Kelso & Irwin, PA v. State Ins. Fund
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • March 3, 2000
    ...be invoked against a governmental or public agency functioning in a sovereign or governmental capacity." State ex rel. Williams v. Adams, 90 Idaho 195, 201, 409 P.2d 415, 419 (1965). Therefore, because the SIF is undisputedly a public agency acting in a proprietary capacity, the doctrine of......
  • IWP v. State Bd. of Land Com'rs, 25125.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • April 2, 1999
    ......Cenarrusa, Secretary of State, Alan G. Lance, Attorney General, J.D. Williams, State Controller, and Anne C. Fox, Superintendent of Public Instruction, all in their official ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT