Village of Silver Lake v. Wisconsin Dept. of Revenue
| Decision Date | 28 December 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-024,78-024 |
| Citation | 87 Wis.2d 463,275 N.W.2d 119 |
| Parties | VILLAGE OF SILVER LAKE and Town of Randall, Petitioners-Appellants, v. WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Respondent. |
| Court | Wisconsin Court of Appeals |
John Zwieg, Elkhorn (argued), with whom on the briefs was Godfrey, Neshek, Worth, Howarth & Leibsle, S. C., Elkhorn, for petitioners-appellants.
E. Weston Wood, Asst. Atty. Gen. (argued), with whom on the brief was Bronson C. La Follette, Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Before MOSER, P. J., BROWN and BODE, JJ.
This is an appeal from an order entered January 30, 1978 affirming an order of the Wisconsin Tax Appeals Commission dismissing the appeals of the Village of Silver Lake and the Town of Randall for lack of jurisdiction.
In 1975, the assessments of municipalities in Kenosha County as established by the State Department of Revenue were:
1975
Recommended
Townships Values
---------------- -----------
Brighton 20,899,000
Bristol 61,050,000
Paris 32,710,000
Pleasant Prairie 165,563,000
Randall 47,098,000
Salem 88,459,000
Somers 96,697,000
Wheatland 32,843,000
1975
Recommended
Villages Values
------------ -----------
Paddock Lake 21,004,000
Silver Lake 15,166,000
Twin Lakes 63,115,000
1975
Recommended
Cities Values
------- -----------
Kenosha 871,007,000
The appellants claim such assessments are in error by approximately 20% For the three larger municipalities in Kenosha County. They claim that these communities should be assessed as follows:
Pleasant Prairie 206,953,000
Somers 120,871,000
City of Kenosha 1,088,758,000
If these three communities were assessed at the higher values asserted by the appellants, they would bear 78.2% Instead of 74.3% Of the county's tax burden. All of the other townships and villages in the county, including the appellants, would bear a correspondingly smaller share of the taxes.
On March 1, 1976, the Wisconsin Department of Revenue denied the appellants' request for redetermination of the 1975 assessment pursuant to sec. 70.57, Stats., because it had no jurisdiction. The appellants appealed that determination to the Wisconsin Tax Appeals Commission. The Department of Revenue's motion to dismiss the appellants' petition to the Wisconsin Tax Appeals Commission was granted February 28, 1977 on the basis that the tax commission lacked jurisdiction over the appeal under sec. 73.01, Stats. The appellants appealed that decision to the circuit court for Kenosha County pursuant to ch. 227, Stats., for an order overruling the Wisconsin Tax Appeals Commission ruling. The circuit court dismissed this appeal on January 30, 1978 on the basis that the Wisconsin Tax Appeals Commission had no jurisdiction under either sec. 73.01 or sec. 70.57, Stats.
The sole issue on this appeal is whether the Wisconsin Tax Appeals Commission had subject matter jurisdiction to hear a petition by a town or a village requesting a redetermination of the 1975 state tax assessment made by the Department of Revenue pursuant to sec. 70.57 and sec. 70.575, Stats.
The appellants are attempting to appeal the assessment by the Department of Revenue under sec. 70.57, Stats. 1 The Wisconsin Tax Appeals Commission, under its broad authority in sec. 73.01(4)(a) and (5)(c), Stats., 2 has jurisdiction to overrule the Department of Revenue and order it to redetermine the 1975 assessment for Kenosha County only if the department had jurisdiction to hear claims by towns and villages under sec. 70.57, Stats.
Administrative boards and commissions have no common law power. Their powers are limited by statute conferring such powers expressly or by fair implication. 3 It is the general rule that an agency or board created by the legislature only has the powers which are either expressly conferred or necessarily implied from the four corners of the statute under which it operates. The effect of this rule has generally been that such statutes are strictly construed to preclude the exercise of a power which is not expressly granted. 4 The question of administrative authority generally arises when boards or commissions have decided issues beyond their statutory authority. Here the Department of Revenue has ruled that it lacks the statutory authority to address the appellants' claim. Our inquiry into statutory authority is the same in either situation.
In the case of a county having a county assessor system, such as Kenosha County, sec. 70.57(1) and (4), Stats., provides that the Department of Revenue shall determine the full value of the taxable property in the county without regard to municipal boundaries. Section 70.575, Stats., then provides that the assessment made by the department for each county in the state shall be added, and the total shall be known as the state assessment. Section 70.57(2), Stats., provides that the Department of Revenue shall set up rules, orders, and procedures to institute hearings on complaints of counties.
The construction of this statute urged by the appellants is that cities, towns, and villages, by implication, have the right to appeal to the State Department of Revenue. Clearly, from the four corners of sec. 70.57(2), Stats., the only proper party to appeal the 1975 assessment of Kenosha County made by the Department of Revenue is the county. Nothing in sec. 70.57(2), Stats., can be said to imply a right by cities, towns, and villages to appeal to the Department of Revenue. If the Department of Revenue entertained such appeals, it would be operating beyond those powers expressly conferred on it by the legislature since such exercise of alleged power must be strictly construed against the department. 5
There is no authority in sec. 70.57, Stats., for a town, city, or village to appeal to the Department of Revenue for a redetermination of the 1975 assessments for Kenosha County. Since there is no authority for the Tax Appeals Commission under sec. 73.01, Stats., to order the Department of Revenue to do something it cannot do, the Commission has no jurisdiction to order the Department of Revenue to hear the appellants' claim. It follows that a court cannot order either the Department of Revenue to do an act not authorized by statute or the Tax Appeals Commission to hear a matter in which it has no jurisdiction. 6
Order affirmed.
1 70.57 Assessment of counties by department of revenue. (1) The department of revenue before September 15 of each year shall complete the valuation of the property of each county, city, village and town of the state except that in counties having a county assessor system in which the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Board of Regents of University of Wisconsin System v. Wisconsin Personnel Commission
...Peterson v. Natural Resources Board, 94 Wis.2d 587, 592-93, 288 N.W.2d 845, 848 (1980); Village of Silver Lake v. Department of Revenue, 87 Wis.2d 463, 468, 275 N.W.2d 119, 122 (Ct.App.1978). Administrative determinations made without subject-matter jurisdiction are void and therefore subje......
-
Sharon Interstate Grain, Inc. v. Town of Sharon, 88-0403
...expressly conferred upon them or can be implied from the statute under which they operate. Village of Silver Lake v. Department of Revenue, 87 Wis.2d 463, 468, 275 N.W.2d 119, 122 (Ct.App.1978). Whether the board initially and the commission thereafter have the power to determine a question......
-
Wisconsin Dept. of Revenue v. First Nat. Leasing Corp.
...N.W.2d 276, 278 (Ct.App.1983). We note that the commission has no common law powers. See Village of Silver Lake v. Wisconsin Department of Revenue, 87 Wis.2d 463, 468, 275 N.W.2d 119, 122 (Ct.App.1978). It has only the powers that are either expressly conferred or necessarily implied from t......