Tobias v. State Tax Commission, s. 9141
| Decision Date | 01 February 1963 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 9141,s. 9141 |
| Citation | 85 Idaho 250,378 P.2d 628 |
| Parties | Mrs. Myrtle TOBIAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE TAX COMMISSION, State of Idaho, County Commissioners of Canyon County, Idaho, Acting as a Board of Equalization of Canyon County, Idaho, and Assessor of Canyon County, Idaho, Defendants-Respondents. Mrs. Mina GATES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE TAX COMMISSION, State of Idaho, County Commissioners of Canyon County, Idaho, Acting as a Board of Equalization of Canyon County, Idaho, and Assessor of Canyon County, Idaho, Defendants-Respondents. Mrs. Fred R. MITCHELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE TAX COMMISSION, State of Idaho, County Commissioners of Canyon County, Idaho, Acting as a Board of Equalization of Canyon County, Idaho, and Assessor of Canyon County, Idaho, Defendants-Respondents. Mrs. R. C. PASLEY, Sr., Mrs. F. M. Cole and Mrs. L. D. Blondel, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. STATE TAX COMMISSION, State of Idaho, County Commissioners of Canyon County, Idaho, Acting as a Board of Equalization of Canyon County, Idaho, and Assessor of Canyon County, Idaho, Defendants-Respondents. to 9144. |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Alexanderson & Davis, Caldwell, for appellants.
Frank L. Benson, Atty. Gen., J. N. Leggat, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., Boise, for respondent State Tax Commission.
C. Robert Yost, Pros. Atty., Caldwell, for respondents County Commissioners and Assessor of Canyon County.
Appellants, taxpayers, commenced these proceedings for the purpose of determining the legality of tax assessments against their certain property interests. The pending appeals resulted from a judgment of the district court validating the assessments.
During the year 1950, Idaho State Chapter, P.E.O. Sisterhood, Inc., hereinafter sometimes referred to as the Sisterhood, was incorporated in Idaho as a non-profit corporation. It acquired certain real property in Caldwell, Canyon County, during the years 1950 and 1955, to which it holds title.
At various times beginning in 1955, appellants, members of the Sisterhood entered into written contracts with the Sisterhood corporation whereby appellants agreed to, and they did, at their respective costs construct dwellings in and upon certain described tracts included within the boundaries of the corporation's real property. The Sisterhood agreed that appellants, during their respective lifetimes, could reside in the dwellings so constructed. Thereafter, the structures would become available for occupancy by other members of the Sisterhood.
On November 16, 1959, the Canyon County Assessor placed upon the county's 'subsequent personal property roll,' I.C. § 63-1205, the said property interests of appellants, and taxes were levied thereon. Assessed valuations for tax purposes of the respective dwellings were comparable to assessed valuations of similar residences owned in fee simple by other taxpayers in Canyon County.
Appellants, on December 18, 1959, paid under protest the taxes so assessed, contending that they were not the owners of the properties. Appellants filed their protests with the County Commissioners of Canyon County sitting as a Board of Equalization in respect to personal property, at its December 1959 meeting. The Board denied the protests.
Appellants appealed to the State Tax Commission. Hearing was had on January 6, 1960, and subsequently, the Commission entered its orders upholding the assessments. Appeals were taken to the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District in and for Canyon County. The proceedings were consolidated and tried de novo before the District Court on December 13, 1960. The court affirmed the prior decisions of the Commission. Appellants perfected their respective appeals to this Court, and here the appeals are consolidated.
At the outset respondents claim that the appeals from the State Tax Commission to the district court did not frame the issues as required by I.C. § 63-2214. The record shows that respondents' motions to dismiss these appeals were not specifically ruled upon. The proceedings were tried and adjudged on their merits; this in effect constituted denial of respondents' motions to dismiss. Respondents did not cross appeal; therefore there is no merit in this contention of respondents.
Issue No. 1. Does the assessor of Canyon County have the authority to levy tax assessments upon appellants' interests in the real property, i. e., the dwellings constructed thereon and occupied under life tenure by appellants; and if he does, was the procedure used according to law?
Appellants contend that the assessor has no such authority in that they do not own and never have owned the property.
The instruments of 'Lease' include covenants whereby if the lessees breach the covenants, the life tenancy can be terminated; other covenants include agreements preventing the lessees from removing the structures, prohibiting assignment without the consent of lessor, and requiring payment of all taxes assessed against the real property. Because of those covenants, appellants contend that their interests are leasehold interests. They contend that they do not own taxable property; in effect they argue that because of the provisions of the leases, they do not own freehold interests.
Estates or interests in lands are of two kinds: freehold estates, consisting of any estate of inheritance or for life in either a corporeal or incorporeal hereditament existing in or arising from real property of free tenure; and estates less than freehold, consisting of estates for years, estates at will and estates at sufferance. Fowler v. Marion & Pittsburg Coal Co., 315 Ill. 312, 146 N.E. 318.
Thompson on Real Property, Vol. 2, § 780.
An estate measured by a tenant's life is a freehold, though subject to termination upon a future contingency during the lifetime. Jones v. Jones, 281 Ill. 595, 117 N.E. 1013. Appellants own freehold estates and not leasehold interests as they contend. The fact that these life estates were created by so-called instruments of lease, does not constitute them something less than life estates. See 33 Am.Jur., Life Estates, § 2.
Since appellants own life estates in real property, it must be ascertained whether such interests are taxable in this state.
Respondents contend that a life tenure in real property is subject to assessment and taxation. Respondents cite I.C. §§ 63-109 and 55-311, and In Re Anderson's Estate 67 Idaho 160, 174 P.2d 212, to support this position. Although such is the general rule of law, respondents' authority does not specifically support this position. I.C. § 63-109 enunciates the statutory definition of personal property for the purposes of taxation, but contains no reference to a life estate in real property. I.C. § 55-311 specifies that the owner of a life estate, inter alia, 'must pay the taxes and other annual charges, and a just proportion of extraordinary assessments benefiting the whole inheritance,' although not specifically providing that a life estate is taxable. In Re Anderson's Estate, supra, the Court, while not specifically holding that a life estate is assessable and taxable to the owner thereof, did hold that under I.C. § 55-311, it was incumbent upon the owner of the life estate to pay the taxes assessed against the property.
I.C. § 63-101 provides that '[a]ll property within the jurisdiction of this state, not expressly exempted, is subject to assessment and taxation'; and I.C. § 63-108 after providing that, for taxation purposes, real property shall be construed to include buildings, structures and improvements in and upon land, includes as taxable real property, 'all rights and privileges thereto belonging, or in anywise appertaining, * * * and all other property which the law defines, or the courts may interpret, declare and hold to be real property under the letter, spirit, intent and meaning of the law.' Taxes assessed become a lien upon the property so assessed. I.C. § 63-102.
Our examination of the statute fails to disclose exemption from taxation of freehold estates such as appellants own. Taxation of such estates is included within the purview of I.C. § 63-101 which subjects property or interests therein to assessment and taxation, unless expressly exempted; also within the definition of real property contained in I.C. § 63-108...
To continue reading
Request your trial