Worthen v. State, 11337

• Decision Date: 06 August 1974
• Docket Number: No. 11337,11337
• Citation: 96 Idaho 175,525 P.2d 957
• Parties: Paul W. WORTHEN et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. STATE of Idaho and Idaho State Tax Commission, Defendants-Respondents.
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

Page 957

525 P.2d 957

96 Idaho 175

Paul W. WORTHEN et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. STATE of Idaho and Idaho State Tax Commission, Defendants-Respondents.

No. 11337.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

Aug. 6, 1974.

Walter H. Bithell, Charles E. Mooney, Boise, for plaintiffs-appellants. W. Anthony Park, Atty. Gen., Robert L. Miller, Asst. Atty. Gen., Boise, for defendants-respondents.

McQUADE, Justice.

This action involves a challenge to the constitutionality of House Bill 789 enacted by the Second Regular Session of the Forty-First Legislature of the State of Idaho in 1972. ¹ House Bill 789 is a revenue act which makes substantial changes in the tax liability of Idaho taxpayers.

The plaintiffs-appellants, Paul W. Worthen, et al., commenced this action alleging that House Bill 789 is unconstitutional. The defendants-respondents, State of Idaho and Idaho State Tax Commission, filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court entered findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment which dismissed the appellants' action. That judgment is appealed to this Court.

The appellants' first assignment of error argues that the trial court erred in granting the respondents' motion for summary judgment because there were material issues of fact in dispute. It is provided in I.R.C.P. 56(c) that,

'The judgment (motion for summary judgment) sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.'

Although the appellants contend that material issues of fact are in dispute, the disputed facts have not been enumerated and are not apparent from a review of the record. It is provided in I.R.C.P. 56(e) that,

'When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this rule, an adverse party may not rest upon mere allegations or denials of his pleading, but must answer in detail as specific as that of the moving papers, setting forth the material facts as he believes and intends to prove them to be. If he does not so answer under oath, summary judgment shall be entered against him.'

The trial court properly concluded that there were no disputed facts and that the action should be disposed of on the motion for summary judgment.

The appellants' second assignment of error contends that the trial court erred in holding that House Bill 789 was constitutional because it was enacted in violation of art. 3 § 14 of the Idaho Constitution. Before reaching the issue of constitutionality, the question of what records are open to this Court to review the passage of legislation must be decided. It has been held that this Court will take judicial notice of public and private acts of the legislature and the legislative journals to determine whether an act was constitutionally passed and for the purpose of ascertaining what was done by the legislature. ² Furthermore, it is provided in I.C. § 67-902,

'At the close of each session, general or special, of the legislature of the state of Idaho the secretary of the senate and the chief clerk of the house of representatives shall compile and certify true and correct printed copies of all printed bills and all amendments thereto introduced in their respective houses and file such printed copies with the secretary of state of the state of Idaho. The secretary of state shall retain the custody of such printed bills and amendments thereto and the same shall constitute official records of the state of Idaho.'

For the purposes of this appeal, House Bill 789 as originally printed, and the legislative journals relating thereto will be used to trace its legislative history.

House Bill 789 was introduced into the House of Representatives of the Forty- First Legislature on March 23, 1972. It is a revenue measure as shown by its title,

'Amending section 63-3004, Idaho Code, by altering the date of reference to the Internal Revenue Code; Amending section 63-3022, Idaho Code, by providing that the exemption for active duty in the armed forces of the United States be limited to full time duty outside this State which is or will be continuous and uninterrupted for 120 consecutive days or more; Amending section 63-3024, Idaho Code, to provide new tax rate schedules for the taxable year commencing on and after January 1, 1972 and clarifying said section in accordance with previous intent by providing that the refund authorized therein apply only when none or less than all of the credit otherwise allowed has been used to offset income tax due: Amending section 63-3027, Idaho Code, by providing for low income allowance and nonbusiness deductions and requiring that the additions and deletions of income from idaho sources specified in subsections 63-3022(a), (d), (e), and (i), Idaho Code, by providing that the Multistate Tax Commission be added to the persons allowed to inspect income tax returns and striking authorization to deliver inventory information to county assessors: declaring an emergency and providing retroactive application.'

House Bill 789 altered the date of reference to the Internal Revenue Code from the code in effect on January 1, 1971, to the code in effect on January 1, 1972. By altering the reference date, the Idaho Legislature adopted the 1972 Internal Revenue Code's method of calculating taxable income. Although the change would appear to be innocuous, the Internal Revenue Code effective January 1, 1972, contained substantial tax incentives for corporations which has been characterized as follows:

'The Revenue Act of 1971 (effective January 1, 1972) (H.R. 10947) might also be labeled, the 'Tax Reduction Act of 1971.' Its major provisions are designed, in one way or another, to reduce the tax burden of all taxpayers, individual and business.

'For the business taxpayer, the tax relief takes the form of a number of tax incentives. There are the restored 7% investment tax credit and a new 20% work incentive program credit. Then there is formal approval of the new, liberalized class life system of depreciation (ADR), which authorizes faster write-offs of business machinery and equipment. And there is also a new rapid amortization deduction allowed for the cost of building on-the-job training and child-care facilities.

'To spur the export of United States products, a new tax entity is created-the Domestic International Sales Corporation (DISC), with special rules for deferring the payment of United States tax on income from exports.

'For the individual taxpayer, the tax relief is somewhat more modest. Highlighting the benefits for the individual are an increased personal exemption and a liberalized standard deduction.

'Also included in the Act are the 7%-auto and 10%-light-truck, as well as other, excise tax repeals. Also in the new law are some new tax incentives to aid in the financing of political campaigns.' ³

The House of Representative rules were suspended and House Bill 789 passed on March 24, 1972.

On March 25, 1972, the Idaho Senate made two major amendments to House Bill 789. The Senate struck that portion which permitted individuals to deduct the amount of their federal income tax liability in determining their taxable income for the state of Idaho. ⁴ The Senate also added the following provisions:

'63-3025. Tax on Corporate Franchise-Disallowance of Federal Income Tax Deduction.-For taxable years commencing on and after January 1, 1972, a tax shall be imposed upon any corporation for the privilege of exercising its corporate franchise within this state during such taxable year, which tax shall be measured by its taxable income derived from sources within this state but without the deduction for federal income tax paid or accrued previously permitted by Idaho Code section 63-3022(c), and such tax shall be computed at the rate of 6.5%.

'Section 8. That Section 63-3025A, Idaho Code, be, and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:

'63-3025A. Tax on Corporate Income-Disallowance of Federal Income Tax Deduction.-For taxable years commencing on and after January 1, 1972, a tax is hereby imposed on the taxable income of any corporation derived from sources within this state but without the deduction for federal income tax paid or accrued previously permitted by section 63-3022(c), Idaho Code, and such tax shall be computed at the rate of 6.5%; provided, however, the tax imposed by this section shall not apply to corporations taxed pursuant to the provisions of section 63-3025, Idaho Code, as amended.' ⁵

On March 25, 1972, House Bill 789 was returned to the House as amended in the Senate. The rules were suspended and the House passed House Bill 789 as amended.

The appellants contend that House Bill 789 was enacted in violation of art. 3, § 14 of the Idaho Constitution which provides:

'Bills may originate in either house, but may be amended or rejected in the other, except that bills for raising revenue shall originate in the house of representatives.'

It is argued that the Senate amendments concerning corporate tax liability were revenue measures that did not originate in the House. The appellants contend that art. 3, § 14 of the Idaho Constitution must be strictly construed to require that all revenue measures originate in the House, and by adding the Senate amendments concerning corporate tax liability, House Bill 789 was enacted in violation of the Idaho Constitution.

The requirement that revenue bills must originate in the House of Representatives is historically derived from parliament's long struggle with the Crown for control of the purse-strings of the English empire. ⁶ This Court has described the purpose of art. 3, § 14 of the Idaho Constitution as,

'The purpose of incorporating it into the fundamental law is that laws for raising revenue are in exercise of one of the highest prerogatives of government, and confer upon taxing officers authority to take...