Village of Tonka Bay v. Commissioner of Taxation
| Decision Date | 09 April 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 36164,36164 |
| Citation | 64 N.W.2d 3,242 Minn. 23 |
| Parties | VILLAGE OF TONKA BAY v. COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Where the language of a revised statute is clear and unambiguous, there is no room for construction or interpretation and prior statutes may not be referred to for the purpose of creating an ambiguity.
2. Provisions of M.S.A. §§ 270.11 and 270.12 considered in conjunction with § 271.06, subd. 1, providing for appeals to the board of tax appeals from 'any official order of the commissioner of taxation respecting any tax, fee, or assessment, or any matter pertaining thereto,' and Held that an order of the state board of equalization is not an official order of the commissioner of taxation and, therefore, is not appealable to the state board of tax appeals.
William F. Kelly, Excelsior, for relator.
J. A. A. Burnquist, Atty. Gen., Joseph S. Abdnor, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Certiorari to the board of tax appeals to review an order dismissing relator's appeal from an order of the state board of equalization for lack of jurisdiction.
On November 6, 1952, respondent, commissioner of taxation, sitting as the state board of equalization, held a hearing to consider, among others, real estate assessments within the Village of Tonka Bay, Hennepin county. On November 15, 1952, the record of the proceedings of the state board of equalization, hereinafter referred to as the board, was certified to the Hennepin county auditor by the commissioner of taxation, hereinafter referred to as the commissioner. 1 Among other things, the board had increased the true and full valuation of all real estate located within the Village of Tonka Bay by 50 percent. Subsequently, the Village of Tonka Bay appealed to the board of tax appeals alleging in part that the increase was contrary to law. The commissioner moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that there is no statutory authority for an appeal to the board of tax appeals from the proceedings of the board or, in the alternative, on the ground that relator was neither directly nor indirectly interested in or affected by said order. The board of tax appeals held that the order in question was not an official order of the commissioner and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
1--2. Relator contends that the board of tax appeals erred in dismissing its appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the board of tax appeals is prescribed by M.S.A. § 271.06, subd. 1, which provides as follows:
'Except as otherwise provided by law, an appeal to the board may be taken, in the manner herein provided, From any official order of the commissioner of taxation respecting any tax, fee, or assessment, or any matter pertaining thereto, by any person directly interested therein or affected thereby, or by any political subdivision of the state, directly or indirectly, interested therein or affected thereby, or by the attorney general in behalf of the state, or by any resident taxpayer of the state in behalf of the state in case the attorney general, upon request, shall refuse to appeal.' (Italics supplied.)
Thus the issue before us is whether the order in question is an official order of the commissioner.
Relator argues that the record of the proceedings of the board became an official order of the commissioner when in the course of his statutory duties the commissioner distributed certified copies of the record. However, the order in question was effective because it was the determination of the board and not because it was authenticated by the commissioner. The commissioner, as such, had neither control over the contents of the order nor discretion with respect to certification. We conclude that the mechanical act of certification is insufficient to transform an order of the board into an official order of the commissioner for purposes of § 271.06, subd. 1.
Relator argues that the state board of equalization was abolished in 1909 by L.1907, c. 408. The commissioner maintains that since §§ 270.11 and 270.12 of the Minnesota Revised Statutes of 1945 are clear and unambiguous, resort cannot be had to the history of these laws for the purpose of creating an ambiguity therein. It is a well-established rule that where the language of a revised statute is clear and unambiguous, there is no room for construction or interpretation and prior statutes may not be referred to for the purpose of creating an ambiguity. 2 Sections 270.11 and 270.12, which have not been amended since 1945, provide in part as follows:
§ 270.11, subd. 1. 'The commissioner of taxation shall have and exercise all the rights, powers and authority by law vested in the state board of equalization, Which board of equalization is hereby continued, with full power and authority to review, modify, and revise all of the acts and proceedings of the commissioner in so far as they relate to the equalization and valuation of property assessed for taxation, as prescribed by section 270.12, which state board of equalization shall meet on the second Tuesday in September of each year during its existence.' (Italics supplied.)
In view of these sections, the separate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Beberman v. Frisch, 36141
-
Commissioner of Taxation v. Crow Wing County
...as being outside of the jurisdiction of the Tax Court. The motion was granted because of our decision in Village of Tonka Bay v. Commissioner of Taxation, 242 Minn. 23, 64 N.W.2d 3. There we said that an order of the commissioner, sitting as the board of equalization, increasing the valuati......
-
Independent Sch. Dist. No. 99, Carlton County v. Commissioner of Taxation
...should not be adjudged void when an adequate authorization exists to validate his actions. As stated in Village of Tonka Bay v. Comm. of Taxation, 242 Minn. 23, 26, 64 N.W.2d 3, 6, 'the commissioner was necessarily acting in his capacity as commissioner since the case involved a reduction i......