Woolfolk v. Driver
| Decision Date | 03 March 1947 |
| Docket Number | Record No. 3152. |
| Citation | 186 Va. 174 |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | ROBERT WOOLFOLK, COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE, ET AL. v. A. B. DRIVER, ET AL. |
Present, Holt, C.J., and Hudgins, Gregory, Eggleston, Spratley and Buchanan, JJ.
1. TAXATION — Levy as Legislative Function — Delegation. — The levy of taxes is a legislative function which it can and does sometimes delegate to boards of supervisors.
2. STATUTES — Invalidity — Severability. — The rule is that an act may be valid in one part, and invalid in another, and if the invalid is severable from the remainder, that invalid part may be ignored, if after such elimination the remaining portions are sufficient to accomplish their purpose in accordance with the legislative intent; and that only if the void portion is the inducement to the passage of the Act, or is so interwoven in its texture as to prevent the statute from becoming operative in accordance with the will of the legislature is the whole statute invalid.
3. TAXATION — Validity of Act Exempting Town — Case at Bar. — The instant case was a suit to direct the Commissioner of Revenue to extend his books so as to contain county levies against two towns in the county which had been exempted from the general levy. Acts of 1902-3-4, Ex. Sess., chapter 144, which incorporated one of the towns, provided that its property "shall not be subject to any county tax."
Held: That the Act in so far as it attempted to exempt the property in the town from liability for county levy was unconstitutional and void as being in conflict with section 168 of the Constitution, which requires that taxation shall be uniform as to class of subjects.
4. TAXATION — Exception from Levy of Towns in County — Case at Bar. — The instant case was a suit to direct the Commissioner of Revenue to extend his books so as to contain county levies against two towns in the county which had been exempted from the general levy. Acts of 1902-3-4, Ex. Sess., chapter 144, which incorporated one of the towns, provided that its property "shall not be subject to any county tax."
Held: That the exception as to towns in the county levy was unconstitutional and void.
5. TAXATION — Levy Exempting Towns from County Levy — Severability of Invalid Portion from Levy — Case at Bar. — The instant case was a suit to direct the Commissioner of Revenue to extend his books so as to contain county levies against two towns in the county which had been exempted from the general levy. Acts of 1902-3-4, Ex. Sess., chapter 144, which incorporated one of the towns, provided that its property "shall not be subject to any county tax."
Held: That the dominant purpose and intent of the board in laying the general county levy was to order a general county levy and that the exception of the towns was clearly severable from the rest of the language of the order and with the invalid portion stricken out was complete and with definite certainty levied and ordered a general county levy on all property in the county, including the towns, subject to local taxation.
Error to a judgment of the Circuit Court of Caroline county. Hon. Leon M. Bazile, judge presiding.
The opinion states the case.
George D. Gibson and John W. Riely, for the plaintiffs in error.
C. O'Conor Goolrick, for the defendants in error.
The Town of Bowling Green in Caroline county was incorporated by an Act of the Assembly, Extra Session 1902-3-4, chapter 144, p. 132. It is there provided that its property "shall not be subject to any county tax," unless authorized by a majority of its inhabitants qualified to vote. This Act was approved April 10, 1903.
The charter of the Town of Port Royal in that county contains no such exemption.
The Board of Supervisors of said county under authority conferred by section 288 of the Tax Code entered this order:
It is ordered that for the payment of county levy for the year ending June 30, 1946, that there be collected a county levy for general purposes of twenty-five cents on each one hundred dollars value of all real estate and tangible personal property, including stocks of merchandise, (except in the towns of Bowling Green and Port Royal) to be collected and paid out by the Treasurer for county purposes, on warrants or checks drawn by the clerk of this board, signed by the chairman and countersigned by the clerk of this board and it is ordered that the Commissioner of the Revenue enter upon his books a levy of one dollar on each one hundred dollars value of all real estate and tangible personal property, including stocks of merchandise for school purposes."
At that time section 168 of our Constitution was in effect, and still is. It reads:
For a number of years the Board of Supervisors of Caroline county has been laying annual levies in substantially these words, which were used in the levy for 1945-1946:
"It is ordered that for the payment of the county levy for the year ending June 30, 1946, that there shall be collected a county levy for general purposes of twenty-five cents on each one hundred dollars value of all real estate and tangible personal property, including stocks of merchandise, (except in the towns of Bowling Green and Port Royal) to be collected and paid out by the Treasurer for county purposes, on warrants on checks drawn by the clerk of this board, signed by the chairman and countersigned by the clerk of this board, and it is ordered that the commissioner of revenue enter upon his books a levy of one dollar on each one hundred dollars value of all real estate and tangible personal property, including stocks of merchandise for school purposes."
These exemptions bestowed upon the Towns of Bowling Green and Port Royal are not only void, but they might as well never have been written.
In the light of what has been said, certain citizens and taxpayers of Caroline county petitioned its court to direct its Commissioner of Revenue to so extend his books as to contain county levies against said towns, something which had not theretofore been done.
Certain citizens of Caroline county, and presumably citizens of these towns, answered that petition, and denied the right of the court to order any assessment against these municipal corporations for general county purposes. To that answer the petitioners demurred. That demurrer was sustained and judgment entered directing that the levy be extended for the years 1942, 1943, 1944 and 1945 against all of the real estate and tangible personal property in the towns both of Bowling Green and of Port Royal, as required by sections 421 and 422 of the Tax Code.
In the construction of statutes, we undertake to make them workable if possible.
If these unconstitutional and void provisions in the county levy make those levies void, then all levies for county purposes levied since 1903 are void; and in that manner bring about intolerable confusion. If these void provisions as applied to county levies are valid, then to that extent these towns have escaped all taxation since 1903 and will continue to escape until the Legislature sees fit to change the law. And this in violation of the flat mandate of the Constitution which makes taxation uniform.
This problem might appear in different forms.
Magisterial District No. 1 in said county might have been exempted from general county levies. Indeed, this exemption might have been applied in this wise: The Legislature and the Board of Supervisors might have decreed that John Smith's farm in that magisterial district be not taxed for county purposes, and John Smith's farm would have continued to escape taxation until the Legislature and the Board of Supervisors saw fit to bring it back into the fold.
Certainly the levy of taxes is a legislative function which it can and does sometimes delegate to boards of supervisors. But that function is subject to this constitutional limitation: It must be uniform on any class of property.
What is the effect of these void legislative provisions?
Huntington Worthen, 120 U.S. 97, 7 S.Ct. 469, 30 L.Ed. 588. See also, Stillman Lynch, 56 Utah 540, 192 P. 272, 12 A.L.R. 552; Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Lewis & Clarke County, 28 Mont. 484, 72 P. 982, 98 Am.St.Rep. 572.
This is the test set out by the Supreme Court in the Huntington Case:
Can it be said that the Legislature would have refused to provide for a general levy in Caroline county if it could not include the exemptions noted? We think not. We find no error in the record.
Appellants have filed an elaborate petition. It has been answered in detail by Judge Leon M. Bazile in an opinion which is a part of the record. It meets with our approval, and we adopt it:
To continue reading
Request your trial