State v. Board of Equalization

• Decision Date: 02 April 1914
• Docket Number: No. 16,664.,16,664.
• Citation: 256 Mo. 455,165 S.W. 1047
• Parties: STATE ex rel. VAN RAALTE et al. v. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION OF CITY OF ST. LOUIS et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

165 S.W. 1047

256 Mo. 455

STATE ex rel. VAN RAALTE et al. v. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION OF CITY OF ST. LOUIS et al.

No. 16,664.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

April 2, 1914.

1. TAXATION (§ 493)—NATURE AND GROUNDS —JUDICIAL NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS.

The functions of the board of equalization in judging the assessments of property are judicial, and if, in the exercise of that power, it acts without rightful jurisdiction, which appears from the face of its record, certiorari is the proper remedy to quash its record and proceedings.

2. TAXATION (§ 482)—LEVY AND ASSESSMENT —EQUALIZATION OF ASSESSMENTS — NOTICE.

That a notice to a property owner to appear before the board of equalization of St. Louis referred to Rev. St. 1899, § 9150 (Rev. St. 1909, § 11,354), as the source of its power, instead of the charter of the city of St. Louis, did not divest it of any rightful authority under such charter, no matter whether Const. art. 9, §§ 23, 25, make such statute inapplicable after the adoption of the city charter.

3. TAXATION (§ 482)—LEVY AND ASSESSMENT —EQUALIZATION OF ASSESSMENTS—NOTICE—WAIVER.

The appearance by a property owner before the board of equalization at the time fixed cured any informality in the notice, such as a reference to a state statute instead of the city charter as the source of the board's power, and secured to the owner the hearing to which it was entitled before the increase of its assessment.

4. TAXATION (§ 491)—LEVY AND ASSESSMENT —EQUALIZATION OF ASSESSMENTS—NOTICE—PREJUDGING ASSESSMENT.

The board of equalization did not prejudge the amount to which an assessment would be increased, where the notice to the owner proposed an increase from $11,400 to $90,000, but the board in fact only increased the assessment to $28,900.

5. TAXATION (§ 204)—LIABILITY OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY—EXEMPTIONS.

Under the express terms of Rev. St. 1909, §§ 11334, 11335, 11337, 11384, 11519, taxes are leviable on all property, except as exempted by statute, which exemption must appear in express terms or by necessary implication; and, if the law invoked to show an exemption is capable of any other rational construction, the exemption cannot exist.

6. TAXATION (§ 356)—LIABILITY OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY—EXEMPTIONS—DEBTS.

While Rev. St. 1909, § 11386, providing that no deduction shall be made from an assessment on account of any indebtedness to mutual insurance companies, or subscriptions to religious, literary, scientific, or charitable bodies or the capital stock of corporations, may admit of the inference that the Legislature did not intend to exclude a deduction for general debts, that is not the sole inference, as it admits of another of equal potency, that the Legislature intended to emphasize the fact that the particular debts named could not be offset against other property, though some were without consideration, and others would be taxable in the hands of the corporations, and of the further inference that, if the Legislature had intended to allow a deduction of other debts, it would have said so in simple terms, as in section 11387, which expressly allows the deduction of uncollectible credits, and therefor a property owner was not entitled to deduct, from credits, money borrowed from others than its debtors.

7. TAXATION (§ 356)—LIABILITY OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY—EXEMPTIONS.

Rev. St. 1909, § 11387, providing for the deduction from assessments on credits of that portion which is uncollectible, does not authorize a deduction when paid in property, though not in money, and a pawnbroker, whose credits were secured by property inferably of greater value than the loans, was not entitled to a deduction on account of the percentage of forfeited loans.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; W. B. Homer, Judge.

Certiorari by the State, on the relation of S. Van Raalte and others, partners as S. Van Raalte & Co., to the Board of Equalization of the City of St. Louis and others, to review the action of such board in increasing the assessable value of relator's property. From a judgment quashing the writ, the relator appeals. Affirmed.

The charter of the city of St. Louis created a board of equalization of five persons, and made the president of the board of assessors the president thereof, who, with four "discreet and experienced real estate owners" to be appointed by the judge of the circuit court of the city of St. Louis, should constitute that board. It specifies when its sessions shall begin and end, and provides: "Said board shall hear and determine all appeals in a summary manner, shall adjust and correct the assessment books accordingly, shall determine, as far as possible, whether the property has been assessed at the true cash value, and in just proportion to the assessed value of the other property in the city similarly situated, and to this end shall increase or diminish the assessment on any property, real or personal or mixed. If they propose to increase the assessment in any case, notice thereof to be served upon the owner, agent, or representative thereof, if within the city, who shall have the right to be heard upon such proposed increase. * * * The members of such board, before entering upon the duties of such office, shall take and subscribe an oath similar to that required of county boards of equalization."

The charter empowers the board to send for person, books, and papers and to compel the attendance of witnesses, and to issue process to be served by the sheriff. Charter of St. Louis, art. 5, § 24. The board of equalization, organized, as prescribed in said charter, on the 12th of April, 1910, notified relator that it proposed to increase the assessed value of its property for that year from $11,400 to $90,000, according to section 9150 of the Revised Statutes of 1899 that such increase would be based on "cash and credits, money loaned or invested in pledges." This notice fixed a day for the appearance and hearing of any objections which relator might have to such increase. On the day set for the hearing, and after the appearance and statement of relator, who was represented by his attorney, the board...