Washburn-Wilson Seed Co. v. Jerome County

• Decision Date: 04 June 1943
• Docket Number: 7001
• Citation: 65 Idaho 1,138 P.2d 978
• Parties: WASHBURN-WILSON SEED COMPANY, a corporation, Appellant, v. JEROME COUNTY, a body politic and corporate and a legal subdivision of the State of Idaho; and WILLIAM N. HARDWICK, as Assessor and Ex-Officio Tax Collector of Jerome County, Respondents
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

138 P.2d 978

65 Idaho 1

WASHBURN-WILSON SEED COMPANY, a corporation, Appellant, v. JEROME COUNTY, a body politic and corporate and a legal subdivision of the State of Idaho; and WILLIAM N. HARDWICK, as Assessor and Ex-Officio Tax Collector of Jerome County, Respondents

No. 7001

Supreme Court of Idaho

June 4, 1943

Rehearing Denied July 3, 1943.

1. Taxation

Peas and beans in warehouse of corporation engaged in business of breeding, growing, and selling at wholesale, peas, beans, and field seeds were subject to taxation as "personal property", and hence taxes imposed upon peas and beans in warehouse were not void ab initio. (I.C.A., sec. 61-109.)

2. Taxation

That property of like character escaped taxation would not relieve taxpayer from paying its tax based on a proper assessment of its property. (I.C.A., sec. 61-109.)

3. Taxation

Statutory remedies afforded to aggrieved taxpayer are exclusive, and a taxpayer may not maintain an action against a county for a general money judgment for amount of taxes erroneously exacted, where the tax is not absolutely void. (I.C.A., secs 61-401 to 61-403, 61-408, 61-1910; Const., art. 7, sec. 12.)

4. Taxation

Where a tax is not void ab initio and legislature has empowered administrative board to determine questions with right of appeal to the courts from board's decisions, such remedies are exclusive. (I.C.A., secs. 61-401 to 61-403, 61-408, 61-1910; Const., art. 7, sec. 12.)

5. Taxation

A taxpayer, which did not complain before board of equalization of county with reference to 1936 assessment and which did not appeal from adverse decision of board to taxpayer's complaint as to 1940 assessment could not maintain action in court for recovery of taxes paid under protest. (I.C.A secs. 61-401 to 61-403, 61-408, 61-1910; Const., art. 7, sec 12.)

Rehearing Denied July 3, 1943.

Appeal from the District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District of the State of Idaho, in and for the County of Jerome. Hon. T Bailey Lee, Judge.

Action to recover taxes paid under protest. From a judgment denying recovery, plaintiff appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

Frank L. Stephan for appellant.

A taxpayer is entitled to maintain an action to recover taxes paid under protest although he has not first applied to the Board of Equalization for relief, when the tax is void ab initio. (Sec. 5, art. VII, Const. of Idaho; sec. 61-102, I.C.A.; sec. 61-105, I.C.A., subd. 19; sec. 61-109, I.C.A.; sec. 61-401, I.C.A.; sec. 61-402, I.C.A.; Yakima Valley Bank and Trust Company v. Yakima County, (Wash.) 149 Wash. 552, 271 P. 820, at 822; Hodgins v. Board of Commissioners, (Kan.) 123 Kan. 246, 255 P. 46; Salthouse v. Board of Commissioners, (Kan.) 115 Kan. 668, 224 P. 70; Toy National Bank v. Nelson, 38 F.2d 261 at 267; Munn v. Des Moines National Bank, (C.C.A.) 18 F.2d 269, 272; A taxpayer is entitled to maintain an action to recover taxes paid under protest although he has not first applied to the Board of Equalization for relief, when the tax is void ab initio. (Sec. 5, art. VII, Const. of Idaho; sec. 61-102, I.C.A.; sec. 61-105, I.C.A., subd. 19; sec. 61-109, I.C.A.; sec. 61-401, I.C.A.; sec. 61-402, I.C.A.; Yakima Valley Bank and Trust Company v. Yakima County, (Wash.) 149 Wash. 552, 271 P. 820, at 822; Hodgins v. Board of Commissioners, (Kan.) 123 Kan. 246, 255 P. 46; Salthouse v. Board of Commissioners, (Kan.) 115 Kan. 668, 224 P. 70; Toy National Bank v. Nelson, 38 F.2d 261 at 267; Munn v. Des Moines National Bank, (C.C.A.) 18 F.2d 269, 272; Denny v. Wooster, (Wash.) 175 Wash. 272, 27 P.2d 328.)Denny v. Wooster, (Wash.) 175 Wash. 272, 27 P.2d 328.)

Although a state may by appropriate legislation classify property for the purpose of taxation such classification must rest upon some reasonable distinction or rational basis and neither a legislature nor a taxing official has the right to cause property of the same kind and under the same conditions and used for the same purpose to be divided into classes for the purpose of taxation and tax the same by a different rule simply because it belongs to different persons. (United Pacific Ins. Co. v. Bakes, 57 Ida. 537, 67 P.2d 1024; State ex rel Anderson v. Rayner, 60 Ida. 706, 96 P.2d 244; art. VII, sec. 5, Idaho Const.)

Even though peas and beans of appellant company might by the legislature be placed in a different class than the peas and beans of "dirt farmers" who plant their own seed on their own farms and own the crops, the right to make such classification is strictly a prerogative of the legislature and the legislature having failed to provide for two different classifications, the assessor could not do so and his neglect and refusal to assess the latter property violates the constitutional and statutory requirements and makes the assessment of appellant's property illegal and void. (61 C.J. 103, par. 32; 61 C.J. 119-121, par. 48.)

R. H. Seeley for respondents.

A taxpayer must first avail himself of the remedy of appearing before the County Board of Equalization before he can maintain an action to recover taxes paid under protest. (Art. VII, sec. 12, Idaho Const.; sec. 61-401, I.C.A.; sec. 61-402, I.C.A.; sec. 61-403, I.C.A.; sec. 61-411, I.C.A.; sec. 61-1910, I.C.A.; Black on Tax Titles, (2d ed.) sec. 142; Belknap Realty Co. v. Simineo, (Mont.) 67 Mont. 359, 215 P. 659; First National Bank of Temple v. Achenbach, (Okla.) 1925 OK 508, 110 Okla. 246, 237 P. 574; 37 Cyc. 1177; 37 Cyc. 1183; Busey v. Prehistoric Oil & Gas Co., (Okla.) 1920 OK 272, 79 Okla. 121, 191 P. 1033.)

The assessment not being void ab-initio and an appearance before the board being a prerequisite to maintaining its action, appellant's action in District Court is by appeal from the Board of Equalization and must be perfected within the time required by statute. (Sec. 61-1910, I.C.A.; Hammond v. Los Angeles County, 104 Cal.App. 235, 285 P. 896.)

One who pays taxes in an amount no more than the law requires has no complaint because of undervaluation or omission of property belonging to one of another class. (37 Cyc. 746; 26 R.C.L. 243; In re Wolverine Oil Co., supra; 196 Pa. 614, 46 A. 861, 50 L.R.A. 86.)

DUNLAP, J. Holden, C.J., Ailshie, Budge and Givens, JJ., concur.

OPINION

DUNLAP, J.

The two cases involved here, being District Court Civil Case No. 2230 and District Court Civil Case No. 2501, were joined for the purpose of this appeal by order heretofore made and entered by this court. The facts in each case are similar and have been stipulated. Appellant is an Idaho corporation with its principal place of business at Moscow, Idaho, and is engaged in the business of breeding, growing and selling at wholesale, peas, beans, and field seeds in, among other places, Jerome County; it owns and operates at Hazelton, in said county, a warehouse for the purpose of storing and cleaning peas and beans and other grains and field seeds belonging to it.

In 1936 respondent William N. Hardwick, then assessor of Jerome County, Idaho, assessed peas and beans belonging to appellant in its warehouse at Hazelton, Jerome County, Idaho, for a valuation of $ 8,000.00. A tax was levied thereon in the sum of $ 485.70. In 1940 appellant's peas and beans at said place were likewise assessed by said assessor in the sum of $ 3,000.00 and the tax levied was the sum of $ 207.30. The taxes for both years were paid by appellant under written protest lodged with the said assessor as the collector of personal property taxes, prior to, or at the times of payment. Appellant made no appearance or complaint to the County Board of Equalization with respect to the 1936 tax, but did appear before said board on December 2, 1940, prior to payment, with respect to the 1940 tax, and set out its protest and objections to the tax, as levied. This protest was denied by the board.

These suits were then filed for recovery of the sums paid and plaintiff prays judgment against said defendants and each of them, for the sums so paid together with interest at 6% per annum from and after the dates of payment until paid.

The following pertinent facts were stipulated, to-wit: Great quantities of similar crops in the possession of individuals, partnerships and corporations engaged in the business of farming within and without Jerome County were not assessed for said years. That it was the practice of the Jerome County taxing officials to make no assessment and levy no tax whatsoever against peas and beans and other grain and field seeds in the possession of and owned by individuals, partnerships and corporations engaged in the business of farming in said county; that taxing officials of said county did assess peas and beans belonging to all individuals, partnerships and corporations engaged in the business of selling peas and beans in said county, as merchandise, on the same basis as the peas and beans owned by appellant. That respondent assessor attempted in good faith to assess all property in Jerome County subject to taxation in compliance with requirements of the State Board of Equalization, and the statutes of the state, and in accordance with forms prepared by and under the supervision of the State Board of Equalization, and attempted to treat all persons fairly and justly, and without discrimination, and particularly persons within the same class. That all the peas and beans so assessed and taxed in said years to appellant, were grown in Jerome and other counties during the preceding years for which the tax was levied, under what is known as "Growers' Regular Contract", being agreement between appellant and growers in said counties, under which contracts title to the seed and crops were at all times retained by appellant.

The conclusions are similar in both cases, and those to which objections are made, are in effect...