Von Ruden v. Miller, 53267
Citation | 642 P.2d 91,231 Kan. 1 |
Decision Date | 05 March 1982 |
Docket Number | No. 53267,53267 |
Parties | William J. VON RUDEN, Jr., Appellant, v. Annabelle MILLER, Appellee. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Kansas |
Syllabus by the Court
1. It is the court's duty to uphold the statute under challenge, if possible, rather than to defeat it, and if there is any reasonable way to construe the statute as constitutionally valid, that should be done.
2. The Kansas intangibles tax authorized under K.S.A.1980 Supp. 79-3109(a ) is a tax of three percent of gross earnings based on ownership of intangible property and is a specific property tax.
3. The uniform and equal clause of article 11, § 1, of the Kansas Constitution applies only to property subject to ad valorem taxes. The Kansas intangibles tax is a specific property tax and, as such, the uniform and equal clause of article 11, § 1, has no application.
4. Intangible property is separately classified as an exception to the uniform and equal clause of article 11, § 1, of the Kansas Constitution but is subject to the requirement that the tax thereon must be uniform within the class.
5. K.S.A.1980 Supp. 79-3109(a ) violates neither article 11, § 1, of the Kansas Constitution nor the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
6. Under article 2, § 21, the legislature may delegate to local units of government the power to legislate on local issues only.
7. The provision of K.S.A.1980 Supp. 79-3109(b ) authorizing local units of government to reduce or eliminate the statewide intangibles tax levy is an unauthorized delegation of legislative authority to local government in violation of article 2, § 1, of the Kansas Constitution.
8. K.S.A. 79-1113, which exempts shares of stock of national banking associations from intangibles taxes, is designed to prevent double taxation, since the stock is subject to taxation under K.S.A.1980 Supp. 79-1107. Such an exemption satisfies both the Kansas and United States Constitutions.
9. K.S.A.1980 Supp. 79-3120a(a ), which exempts notes secured by real estate mortgages on which mortgage registration tax has been paid from intangibles taxes, prevents double taxation, satisfying both the Kansas and United States Constitutions.
10. K.S.A.1980 Supp. 79-3120a(b ), which exempts intangible property used for an IRA qualified retirement plan from intangibles taxes is an exemption based on use, satisfying both the Kansas and U. S. Constitutions.
11. K.S.A.1980 Supp. 79-3120a(c ), which exempts low income elderly or disabled persons from intangibles taxes, is an exemption which serves a public purpose by reducing public assistance expenditures, satisfying both the Kansas and U. S. Constitutions.
12. K.S.A.1980 Supp. 79-3120a(d ), which exempts that intangible property from taxation which local units of government declare exempt, is an unauthorized delegation of legislative authority to local government in violation of article 2, § 1 of the Kansas Constitution.
13. K.S.A.1980 Supp. 79-3120a(e ), which exempts credit unions from intangibles taxes, promotes the general welfare by encouraging thrift and creating a source of credit on a non-profit basis. It satisfies both the Kansas and U. S. Constitutions.
Timothy P. O'Sullivan of Schmidt, O'Sullivan & Langley, Hutchinson, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellant.
Kenneth P. Hackler, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., argued the cause and Robert T. Stephan, Atty. Gen., was with him on the brief for appellee.
This is a declaratory judgment action challenging the constitutionality of K.S.A.1980 Supp. 79-3109, K.S.A. 79-1113 and K.S.A.1980 Supp. 79-3120a, the intangibles tax and exemptions therefrom.
William J. Von Ruden, Jr., a resident of Reno County, was levied a tax of $29 on his intangible property pursuant to K.S.A.1980 Supp. 79-3109. He filed this action against Annabelle Miller, Reno County Treasurer, challenging the tax. The trial court held the act and its exemptions constitutional, obligating Von Ruden to pay the tax. This appeal followed challenging the constitutionality of the act.
Let us state at the outset the long-standing and well-established rules of this court when considering the constitutionality of a statute. Constitutionality is presumed, all doubts must be resolved in favor of the statute's validity, and before a statute may be stricken down it must be clearly shown it violates the constitution. It is the court's duty to uphold the statute under challenge, if possible, rather than defeat it, and if there is any reasonable way to construe the statute as constitutionally valid, that should be done. State ex rel. Stephan v. Martin, --- Kan. ---, 641 P.2d 1011 (1982); State ex rel. Schneider v. Kennedy, 225 Kan. 13, 20-21, 587 P.2d 844 (1978); City of Wichita v. Kansas Corporation Commission, 225 Kan. 524, 527, 592 P.2d 880 (1979); Rogers v. Shanahan, 221 Kan. 221, 223, 565 P.2d 1384 (1976); Brown v. Wichita State University, 219 Kan. 2, Syl. P 3, 547 P.2d 1015 (1976).
Any discussion of the issues involved should be prefaced by noting the relevant constitutional and statutory provisions. Article 11, § 1 of the Kansas Constitution provides:
"The legislature shall provide for a uniform and equal rate of assessment and taxation, except that the legislature may provide for the classification and the taxation uniformly as to class of motor vehicles, mineral products, money, mortgages, notes and other evidence of debt or may exempt any of such classes of property from property taxation and impose taxes upon another basis in lieu thereof."
K.S.A.1980 Supp. 79-3109 states in part:
K.S.A.1980 Supp. 79-3109(b ), in substance, provides the board of county commissioners of any county, the governing body of any city, and the township board of any township, may fix the rate of the tax levied upon money, notes and other evidence of debt having a tax situs in the governmental unit, at a rate other than prescribed in subsection (a ). The board of county commissioners may fix the rate at one-fourth of one percent or a multiple thereof not to exceed three-fourths of one percent. The city or township, as the case may be, may fix a rate in the amount of one-fourth of one percent or a multiple thereof not to exceed two and one-fourths of one percent. The respective governing bodies may also elect that no tax be levied, in which case the issue shall be submitted to a referendum upon petition by five percent of the electors. Conversely, if the governing body does not elect to eliminate the tax five percent of the electors may petition for a referendum on that issue. The governing body of any county, city, or township which has voted to eliminate the tax is authorized to impose and levy any other tax which may be authorized by law or to increase its ad valorem tax levy to offset the revenue loss.
K.S.A. 79-1113 provides:
K.S.A.1980 Supp. 79-3120a provides:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Johnson Cnty. v. Jordan, 114,827.
...substantially identical to the principle of equality embodied in the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment." Von Ruden v. Miller, 231 Kan. 1, 10, 642 P.2d 91 (1982). But later in the same opinion, the Von Ruden court clarified that this statement was limited to "constitutional chall......
-
Heartland Apartment Ass'n, Inc. v. City of Mission
...taxes were ad valorem taxes, but our court would be called upon later to address a non-ad valorem property tax.In Von Ruden v. Miller , 231 Kan. 1, 6, 642 P.2d 91 (1982), the court considered an intangibles tax that required payment of 3 percent of gross earnings from intangible property su......
-
State ex rel. Murray v. Palmgren
...be done. Statutes are not stricken unless the infringement of the superior law is clear beyond a reasonable doubt. Von Ruden v. Miller, 231 Kan. 1, 642 P.2d 91 (1982); In re Brooks, 228 Kan. 541, 543, 618 P.2d 814 (1980); State v. Huffman, 228 Kan. 186, 189, 612 P.2d 630 (1980); Colby Distr......
-
Heartland Apartment Ass'n, Inc. v. City of Mission
...general statement in Callaway that an excise tax includes “ practically any tax which is not an ad valorem tax.” In Von Ruden v. Miller, 231 Kan. 1, 8, 642 P.2d 91 (1982), the court noted that “[t]he Kansas intangibles tax fits neither the definition of an ad valorem tax nor an excise tax.”......
-
2002 Kansas Death Tax Legislation: an Emperor in Need of Clothes
...in nature if it vests the delegate with discretion to make decisions that will change existing state law. See Von Ruden v. Miller, 231 Kan. 1, 13 (1982). Thus, a provision tying Kansas law to a Federal statute subject to amendment by the United States Congress could be construed as an uncon......
-
Planning for Kansas Death Taxes in 2003: a Notice-able Difference
...in nature if it vests the delegate with discretion to make decisions that will change existing state law. See Von Ruden v. Miller, 231 Kan. 1, 13 (1982). Thus, a provision tying Kansas law to a federal statute subject to amendment by the U.S. Congress could be construed as an unconstitution......