History
  • No items yet
midpage
FENT v. FALLIN
2014 OK 105
Okla.
2014
Read the full case

Background

  • SB 1246 (2014) amended Oklahoma income tax rates; originated in the Senate, passed both houses, approved by Governor, effective Aug 28, 2014.
  • Petitioner Jerry Fent (resident taxpayer) challenged SB 1246 as a "revenue" bill that must comply with art. 5 §33 origination/approval rules.
  • Parties agreed: if SB 1246 is a revenue bill under §33, it failed constitutional requirements (it did not originate in House as required).
  • Central legal question: whether the 1992 amendment to art. 5 §33—whose ballot title referred to bills "intended to raise revenue"—applies only to tax increases ("raise" = increase) or to any law that levies/collects taxes (including reductions/changes).
  • Court examined historical precedent (Anderson v. Ritterbusch), the 1992 ballot title/text, framers’ intent, and concluded the popular meaning of "raise" in the amendment was "increase," so §33’s popular-vote/supermajority constraints do not apply to SB 1246.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument (Fent) Defendant's Argument (Fallin) Held
Whether SB 1246 is a "revenue" bill under art. 5 §33 Any law that collects taxes is a "raising revenue" bill regardless of whether it increases or decreases taxes; §33 therefore applies The 1992 amendment was aimed at bills that "raise" (i.e., increase) revenue; a tax-cut is not a revenue-raising bill and §33 does not apply Court held §33 (as amended in 1992) applies to bills that increase revenue; SB 1246, which reduced rates, is not subject to §33

Key Cases Cited

  • Anderson v. Ritterbusch, 98 P. 1002 (Okla. 1908) (early definition of "raising revenue": laws levying taxes for state purposes; distinguished incidental revenue)
  • In re Initiative Petition No. 348, State Question No. 640, 820 P.2d 772 (Okla. 1991) (approval of ballot title for 1992 amendment to art. 5 §33)
  • Calvey v. Daxon, 997 P.2d 164 (Okla. 2000) (discussed history/effect of 1992 amendment but not the ballot-title meaning issue)
  • Austin, Nichols & Co. v. Oklahoma County Bd. of Tax-Roll Corrections, 578 P.2d 1200 (Okla. 1978) (principles on construing constitutional language and purpose)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: FENT v. FALLIN
Court Name: Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Date Published: Dec 2, 2014
Citation: 2014 OK 105
Court Abbreviation: Okla.