Wadhams & Co. v. State Tax Commission

• Decision Date: 09 August 1954
• Parties: WADHAMS & CO. et al. v. STATE TAX COMMISSION et al.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

Page 440

273 P.2d 440

202 Or. 132

WADHAMS & CO. et al. v. STATE TAX COMMISSION et al.

Supreme Court of Oregon.

Argued March 10, 1954.

Decided Aug. 9, 1954.

William H. Masters, Portland, argued the cause for appellant. On the briefs were Masters & Masters, Portland.

Howard E. Roos, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen., argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Robert Y. Thornton, Atty. Gen., and Theodore W. de Looze, Asst. Atty. Gen.

Dan M. Dibble, Deputy Dist. Atty., for Multnomah County, Portland, argued the cause for intervenor-respondent. With him on the brief was John B. McCourt, Dist. Atty., for Multnomah County, Portland.

Before LATOURETTE, C. J., and WARNER, ROSSMAN, LUSK, BRAND and TOOZE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court denying relief to fifteen taxpayers in Multnomah County from what is claimed to be an unequal and disproportionate burden of personal property taxation for the year 1950. The decree in effect approved an order of the State Tax Commission which in turn had affirmed the action of the County Board of Equalization in refusing to disturb the assessments.

The taxpayers, herein referred to as appellants, are merchants in the city of Portland. Their asserted grievance is that their merchandise inventories were assessed at 60% of true cash value, whereas buildings and improvements on land were assessed at only 25% of true cash value. The issue is disclosed by the notice of appeal from the order of the Tax Commission to the Circuit Court, filed by the appellant Wadhams & Company, which reads in part:

'* * * The said Wadhams & Company appeals from said order upon the grounds that the Assessor of Multnomah County, Oregon, in assessing property subject to assessment as of January 1, 1950, has intentionally and systematically used methods in arriving at the true cash value and assessed value of different classes or kinds of property subject to assessment in Multnomah County which results in inventory personal property generally, and the inventory personal property of this appellant in particular, being systematically assessed at 60% of its true cash value, whereas, buildings and improvements are systematically assessed at only approximately 25% of their true cash value.'

At the hearing in the Circuit Court all the evidence on behalf of the appellants was directed towards an attempt to support the foregoing charge. It was not claimed that the inventory personal property of the appellants was assessed at a greater sum than its true cash value nor disproportionately with regard to similar property of others. Nor is any such claim made in this court. The sole issue is upon the alleged disproportion between the assessments of plaintiffs' stocks of merchandise, on the one hand, and buildings and improvements on land in the county, on the other.

The Tax Commission and Multnomah County, which, pursuant to leave of court, filed a complaint in intervention, contend that neither the Circuit Court nor this court has jurisdiction to consider and determine the only question which the appellants have presented. The point is raised for the first time in this court, and, since it involves a question of jurisdiction, it must, of course, be passed upon.

The statutes under which the proceeding was initiated and finally reached this court are O.C.L.A. §§ 110-404, 110-524, 110-609 as amended, and 110-610. Section 110-609, as amended, and § 110-610, which provided for appeals from orders of the Tax Commission to the Circuit Court, are no longer in effect. They were repealed by Oregon Laws 1953, ch. 708, which established a completely new method of judicial review of orders of the Tax Commission, now found in ORS 306.545-306.580. Section 18 of the 1953 Act, the repealing clause, provides that such repeal shall not affect proceedings pending at the time of the effective date of the Act, 'except that so far as practicable such appeals, suits or proceedings shall be completed or disposed of as provided in this Act, and the procedures provided for in this Act shall be employed in completing or disposing of the same.' Inasmuch as this case was heard and decided in the Circuit Court in 1952, none of the provisions of the new act can be applied here.

It is provided by O.C.L.A. § 110-404 that the County Board of Equalization may correct as assessment which may be 'under or beyond the actual full cash value' of the property assessed. O.C.L.A. § 110-609, as amended by Oregon Laws 1949, ch. 98, authorized an appeal by a taxpayer who has petitioned the Board of Equalization 'for the reduction and equalization of the assessed valuation' from and order of the Board to the State Tax Commission. O.C.L.A. § 110-610 authorized an appeal by an aggrieved taxpayer from any order of the Tax Commission to the Circuit Court of the county in which the property affected is located. Subdivision 3 of § 110-610 provided in part as follows:

'Appeals shall be heard and determined by the court in a summary manner, as a suit in equity, except as herein provided. * * * If on the hearing the court finds that the amount at which the property finally was assessed is its reasonable true cash value and that...