*1 as the criminal division. There was no finding congestion before, was than relief was or that sought by greater asking for additional judges. the trial court’s entered after
We hold that findings, filed, do not constitute sufficient to dismiss was motion Therefore, writ is of court. term exclude any grounds granted.
Writ granted. George Harris, Rose Smith C.J.,
We agree. Bvrd, JJ. et al SERVICE COMMISSION PUBLIC
ARKANSAS et al OF BOARD EQUALIZATION COUNTY PULASKI 2d 79-25 582 S.W. delivered Opinion June *3 Clark, Gen., Steve Asst. Atty. Jones, by: Atty. Jackson Gen., for appellants. Pike, Clark, & Eldredge Friday, George by: Jr., appellees. Ross, Ross, A. Ross & Jr., of for amicus curiae James
Arkansas Assessors West, Association D. Drew Coun- J. Assessor. ty Gitchell, intervenor, Mitchell <2? Cearley, Bogard, Bryant, *4 Arkansas Education Association. Harris, The Pulaski Carleton Chief County Justice.
Board of instituted action with the Public Equalization Ser- Commission, PSC, vice hereafter called as the State sitting Board of that the State Equalization, asking Equalization Board and Assessment Coordination Division undertake statewide, a full of assessment a investigation make practices thereon, and order reassessment and report equalization all counties, taxable of all the other 74 to the end property that all will be taxed and its at property equally uniformly true, actual, and market value as the Arkansas required by Constitution; that the Board take such be as steps might Act have 411 of 1973 and Act 188 1969 necessary declared unconstitutional. After a in which public hearing, taken, testimony was the Commission found that it had matter; over the that in the jurisdiction opinion the At- 68 General, not does require the Constitution
torney value; at current assessed property Assembly the General provide Constitution permits and classes tax treatment for different different acts, are valid. two 1973 and that the observed, of the Attorney “In- view then Commission are con- statutes General’s and the opinion presumption man- stitutional, out carry legislative we obligated leave question 411 and and date embodied Acts the court.” of the acts for to the constitutionality Commission for review of the order A pеtition filed with the Division was Coordination Assessment trial, Court, Division, on Circuit Second Pulaski County trial court held a well-considered after opinion, preparing directed: Í. Act 188 declared unconstitutional That and its and the Public Service Commission Arkansas Assessment Division shall comply Coordination uniform with such Act enforcing State. assessments throughout 2. Act 411 of 1973 declared unconstitutional That and its and the Public Service Commission Arkansas Division shall not Assessment Coordination comply uniform with such Act enforcing the State. assessments throughout 3. based on other than That all assessment practices and the current market value are unconstitutional Service Arkansas Public Commission and Assess- ment Division shall not such Coordination employ prac- uniform tices assessments enforcing State, hereinafter throughout except provided. 4. the Arkansas Public That Service Commission *5 Division its Assessment Coordination shall: a. an designed implementation plan Develop this Or- all into full with counties compliance bring 1984; the end of calendar der by year for an b.Provide in such implementation plan 15 counties orderly equitable procedure whereby shall be reassessed each such year per year using market value manuals and schedules developed by Assessment the Public Coordination Division Service Commission as the Court. by approved This shall with those reassessment begin process counties with between assessed greatest disparity value and market value and at rate of proceed counties all counties. year per seventy-five through The counties shall be ranked in order disparity between assessed value and market using criteria: following
(1) The official ratio study published January 1, 1979, Assessment Coordination Division the Public Commission. Service
(2) The valuation manual used by currently to value county (3) The date of most recent county-wide reassessment in the county. 1,
с. and submit December Court by Prepare 1979, and all work- copies implementation plan therein; to be manuals used ing 31, d. Submit annual December reports beginning 1980, out the full date toward com- setting progress pliance.
5. The reassessment shall take the first fifteen place 1, 1980, 31, counties from December January through on the based value of January 1980. The thus values determined shall be used assessors for increase or decrease in value of each 1,1981. January between January counties shall be reassessed remaining during the next four on the same basis. years
70 of all
6. consent ex- This Order is entered parties1 AEA, the merits of their without respec- cept affecting or on subse- taken this Court tive before positions AEA, than that quent parties, appeal, except out herein for set that the program compliance stipulate shall used to the extent be judgment program affirmed on the constitutional appeal questions presented. 188 of 411 of 1973 and Act Act validity Article meaning
dependent upon §5 we to in- Constitution of Arkansas. Accordingly, required this litigation. section Pertinent determining terpret issue, here at follows: the section as portions, provide accord shall be taxed All to taxation subject property in such value to be ascertained to its ing direct, shall manner as the General Assembly making the State. No same uniform and throughout equal from which a tax may one species property than another collected shall be taxed higher ** value[2]* property equal two We are called to determine questions: upon in Article I. Whether “value” as used Arkansas, means “current use value” Constitution of market, value.” “fair true real may constitutionally II. Whether the Legislature one with the result classify being on basis be taxed a different “species” than another “species” the action filed made defendants pаrty were 1All other assessors subsequently was Association Education PSC and the Arkansas with the to intervene.
given permission be ex shall that certain provides the section [2]Additionally, exclusively public taxation, viz., used “public from empt such; such; exclusively used cemeteries used churches properties; exclusively used grounds and libraries apparatus; school buildings exclusively materials used grounds buildings properties; school charity.” for public inter-related, In a these and this first sense two issues are extent, a discussion certain point may require, *7 second point. to
Because it is somewhat best confusing, perhaps first the to manuals that were used. explain being According Russell, Mr. Marvin Director of the Assessment Coordina- PSC, tion Division of the had a the assessors been using manual in 1960. manual Another was prepared prepared counties, 1972 (not clear), and four or five at that entirely time, in- manual had the 1972 because began using they however, itiatеd other counties re-appraisal programs; manual manual, continued to and this was use the 1960 1973, in use in In 1972. 411 Act was general July, passed by General act that the assessment Assembly, providing manual and standards the Assessment Coor- promulgated by dination Division for the valuation real in this 1, state in as of effect 1972 in (this was the 1960 manual July use for the general mentioned), five counties except should continue to be the assessment and standards be manual followed by assessment ratio department making studies until such time as the new department promulgated or revised assessment manuals and standards and obtained thereof the General approval by 1960 manual Assembly. effect, which Act used, directed contained ap- based 1961 praisal values for farm and guides upon timber land values for 1956 residential construction. According- under ly, Act residential values were “frozen” as and timber and farm land values were “frozen” and those counties whiсh had started the 1972 manual using 1, 1972, before stated, as Russell “were July locked actually it, into involuntarily.”3
While, to Russell, the furnished guidelines by manual use at the direction the legislature represent minimum, a most of the actually, assessors use the guidelines that, a maximum. He further testified even some though 3Act 411 does provide that the assessors use may other acceptable ap praisal or valuation methods which their judgment provide for a more equitable assessment and appraisal of real and personal (provided methods do not these place assessment below the years heretofore mentioned). the minimum above have been raised provided
assessments Division manual, Coordination the Assessment 1956 and valuations. on the basis makes its audit value as: defines stated manual Russell worth for which The amount of goods money money’s within a reasonable or services be exchanged time, both conditions to whiсh under parties period able, well in- and reasonably exchange willing courts, As it is the price formed. defined highest will estimated in terms of which a money bring market, if for sale in the allowing open exposed who with all time to find a reasonable purchaser buys *8 for which to which it is adapted knowledge usage it it is to as used. referred is Frequently, capable being sell a will- the at which a seller would willing price under would neither abnormal buyer buy, ing being pressure.
So, 411 and for Acts except portion manual well for market value would provide pretty valuations. to ratio of value market
Several studies the assessed the value in were mentioned in years testimony, particular one, the in from 2.66% to all percentage varying way 13.93%; another, 16.87%; third, in from 2.66% to and in a to from 3.98% a of 18.06%. high thus not It is is readily being apparent state, at the and this assessed same valuation throughout fact, all kinds of the ratio of to actually applies property; to be different al- assessed value to market value appears most every county.
So, it is that assessments and un- clear “equal iform the state” as Constitution. throughout required to the But relates larger question meaning “value,” word that “all Article requiring its taxation shall taxed value.” An subject illustration which serves to drive is overly perhaps simple an dis- home the of the word “value.” If individual meaning automobile, article, an an article of an be it plays jewelry, sold, even if is and is asked the a house question, being course, answer, value?”, is the value “What its 1961— what it was worth 1956 or property today —not The constitutional it would year. requirement, value,” means because its undoubtedly “present appear, value in some other would almost not be the year certainly value, same the current if some other accordingly, used, addition, basis would not be true value at all. In but failure to use use instead to present values, 1956 аnd 1961 likewise violates the that the provision state,” same shall be and uniform “equal throughout the reason that the value of in some since counties properties increased, those has while others there has years greatly increase, others, been in- an but not still so and in great, crease in words, value has been minimal. In other ratio of increase in values has been far from the same in all 75 counties. it is
But Constitution argued “that provides be ascertained in such manner as the General direct.” Assembly shall cited) So it is (from does—but cases hereafter apparent
that this means that the General provision Assembly may assessments, i.e., select the methodfor for equalizing reaching the true value of and not for the property, purpose arriving at a lower value for some is
It think we that as interesting, significant, far concerned, is. present subject all constitutions previous this instance, follow same Constitution, formаt. For our first 1836, uses the identical adopted heretofore language 5, from Article quoted the 1874 Constitution. The same is true the 1861 Constitution and of the 1864 Constitution, Constitution. The in the varies 1868 language but provides:
Laws shall rule, be a uniform all passed taxing, credits, bonds, moneys, investments in stock com- joint 74 otherwise; all real and and also personal
panies (Our true lvaluein to its money,” property, emphasis.) for six at
This remained effect years, Constitution which was again which time the Constitution passed, of the Constitutions uses the exact language identical, language 1864. Accordingly, since courts earlier held relative to to observe what our worthwhile this provision. State, Pike decided
In the case of Ark. early of the after the Constitu- adoption just eight years tion, The the court this same construed opinion provision. Daniel was written our first Chief Ringo. Justice, to revenue legislature, raising support purpose in- which state had enacted provided, government, legislation alia, ter that a tax should be levied on all lands within lying those virtue a compact state (except exempted by town and the States); alt lots between this state and the United be thereon all should lands improvements providing held certain the true value thereof. The court valued at im- invalid, to of this act due the fact provisions stated, on located town lots were taxed and provements only “If, instance, houses, no house tax be on brick imposed therefrom, but all can be of that description legally exempt such, or in in a town whether situated city, village, is, in contribute must proportion equally, country, value, to State.” The court added that their the revenue no restrict power operation legislature possessed lands or the law might particular improvements state, or in sec- situated in some specified portion thereof, division or the reason be- tiоnal or sub-division legal that, Constitution, must be the tax under imposed ing court stated the and uniform state. The throughout equal rule to be: taken, not view we
From the which have but of the constitu- every part above provision quoted, *10 this, be tion, the rule there to we consider prescribed of upon character and every description that property levied, a be taxed which State tax be must value, to that real true and according proportion State; basis be made to contribute to revenue of that no distinct genus portion species be can ever which such tax property upon imposed, (Our therefrom. exempt emphasis.) Worthen, 529, 13 St. LouisIMS Co. v. S.W. In Ark. Ry. (1890), in the case was relevant question whether the the constitutional mandate violated legislature taxation for all created a when it equal property state board for the task of the value of railroad determining all local assessors property, determining This court did held that such a property. procedure violate the constitutional taxation for all requirement equal value. property equal a case, from California court said:
Quoting We see are unable to how fact that value of one kind of one be ascertained officer by board, and the value of another kind of — another officer or board each clothed with the duty — the actual value responsibility can ascertaining be held to a operate deprivation legal protection owners of either kind of The State board in the case, one the Assessors other, boards in the county are but different instrumentalities which through reached; same result is the fair and valuation ref- just erence to standard, and, the same therefore, the equal and uniform valuation of of taxa- purposes tion. (Our emphasis.) course, value,
Of market there determining mаny factors to be taken into consideration. In AmericanBauxite Co. v. Board 119 Ark. 177 S.W. Equalization, court reversed the circuit court for as the income relying upon sole indicator the value of the of its disregard actual market value. We mentioned elements that several could well be considered in determining stating:
In the determination of the a market value of given piece are to property, necessarily great many things *11 account, voluminous much of the
taken into in as evidence this record bearing upon competent in a much of it tends only although that question, It is of that remote to the elucidation degree question. to take into proper always determining question land; it the uses which the of the to account character the soil; the timber of growing be character put; hidden of as well as the ores on the the land surface land; beneath; development; of the its the accessibility so been to which have its other lands proximity of value; to its own add quantity developed it to which lands of a similar character other adjacent it more attractive would be to make calculated fact or with other together any prospective purchasers, all But value. circumstance which affects the property’s at last be these are to considered purpose questions of of for that is the marketvalue the tract question, ascertaining the value which must purposes assessment adopted for ascertained, in the market when it has been determining land, instance, non-mineral ordinary soil, of the not be to consider would depth improper and the which could be the crops profitably grown, investor would of these A relative crops. prudent prices and its tract land con- consider any accessibility market, also take into account venience to and he would So, also, his with the faсilities marketing produce. lands, take into account it would be mineral proper ore, for, of min- the facilities and cost quantity it, which well as fact circumstance ing would make such lands a more attractive likely proposi- But all these are to be tion to things prospective buyer. for the considered ascertaining purpose (Our market value of the land. emphasis.) 411 and of Acts until time of up Actually, passage that our seems to have the General Assembly recognized on the basis the assessment of Constitution required of Ark. Stat. of current market value. The sentence opening 1960), which is an act Ann. 84-428 March, 1883, passed (Repl. part (nine after the Constitu- years adoption Taxes,” tion) and a listed “Assessment part Chapter provides: valued at
Each real shall be separate parcel value of true market value money, excluding thereon; but the at which such real crops growing price *12 or not estate would sell at auction at a forced sale shall be taken the criterion of such true value. as Ark. §84-426, Stat. Ann. 1929, in passed provides: All this in state shall be assessed by duly authorized authorities to its value on the first according Provided, of stocks of and day January. merchants manufacturers shall be assessed at the value stock or average under possession control during year immediately the first preceding day January in which assessment is year required. Ark. Stat. §84-427, 1929, Ann. also passed provides: Every his assessment person shall assess all making farm owned him on 31st, crops by July preceding and to date, its value of that according instead 1st. January there is no reference to the
Certainly value of the proper- at time ty dates, other than those any and it is clear that this act for called and this to be procedure valuation made each year. course,
Of the General has the to authority Assembly enact nоt in conflict with Article and legislation §5, has full set to authority market value that percentage shall be used in the assessment. making
Ark. Stat. §84-476, Ann. sets out: passed and assessment shall be appraisal value Section 5 of XVI required by Article Constitution. The true and or actual centum market per full value beusedin the and assessmentshall appraisal fixed (c) the Commission sub-section provided certified 84-103, Statutes, Section Arkansas 1947;[4] provided [4]This section provides that Arkansas Public Service Commission have power authority shall full in the administration of the tax laws with a
that until and unless budget system adopted tax rates excessive and illegal eliminating provisions fix cer shall the Commission expenditures, value in ex actual true and market centum tify per full (Our (20%). centum emphasis.) cess twenty per at least Assembly, It is thus General apparent as used in Article through recognized §5 market, true, value. meant actual said, it been is evident with what has In accordance unconstitutional, with we and we find Act 411 of agree however, One, reasons. is true for several that this appellees Act, is not assessed as sufficient. Under current instead, artificial values but *13 used, likewise, and and certain construction residential as of and timber land are valued farm has Much what been said necessarily applies equally which, commented the second we initially, to question, viz, first, con- linked with the whether the legislature may that one the result stitutionally classify being property, basis than be taxed on a different species another property the one discuss- Act even more than obviously just ed, constitutional violates the property provision plainly its the same shall taxed to “making equal according from state.” few the and uniform the A excerpts throughout act establish this fact. Section provides: clearly Hereafter, farm, to devoted all lands which are actively use assessеd ad timber shall be agricultural the clerk and a certificate the time that it has ation as that assessors the Commission the same basis (c) state provides for the now force and boards county used, showing so certified beginning of the assessment or will valuation of assessor the Commission required or such of review or equalization use, per of each centum of valuing to may hereinafter be Commission.” county assess; shall “file with for taxation true and their and later than county it shall full the for that enacted and sub-section county county be the ten year the tax [10] judges purpose or actual judge, duty of the days assessors county before adopt tax- use, valorem tax on basis such current purposes shall not be assessed as if subdivided on any * * (Our basis.* emphasis.) (A) (B), sub-sections Section provide: farm, to have his owner (A) desiring agricultural Any or timber un- land assessed current use der the of this Act shall make provisions applicatiоn assessor, of the wherein the land is county county located on forms as such assessor shall direct. county form Such must be filed between 1 and January July calendar during year immediately preceding which such classification tois Such forms shall begin. include such information shall be reasonably to determine the entitlement of required the applicant and each shall an include affidavit application that the statements contained therein are true.
(B) the submission of if the initial Upon application board of county wherein equalization county the real is located finds that the land qualifies Act, under the of this it shall file notice of the provisions assessor, county same with the assessorshall county as to land such makea on notation theassessmentlist and tax roll each the assessedvalue suchland theuse year of *14 for whichit is in addition the assessedvalue suchland classified itwere not so shall file notiсe thereof with classified, the tax collector. (Our county emphasis.) (D) Sub-section that once the land has been provides as classified farm it shall remain in that classifica- property, tion until a there is the owner by that be withdrawn request classification, from the until or the assessor shall find the is used for land The purposes. legislation provides the owner each shall file an affidavit that the land is be- year farm, used or timber ing agricultural, purposes.
The Act then sets out: lands withdrawn from above
Any classification either owner failure owner to through entitled to use shall not be affidavit of file the required farm, Act agricultural be classified under again (4) has elapsed. or timber lands until four year period above from the classifica- land is either withdrawn If the fail file an affidavit thereof shall or the owner tion taxescollected beassessedand thentheland shall each year, use (Our or non-timberlands. thereonas non-farm,non-agricultural emphasis.) lands, farm, un- words, timber
In other agricultural use made of der taxed Act according we have which and not the market pointed property, Constitu- out under Article as the requirement §5 tion. Worthen, Ft. Little Rock & Co. v.
In Smith Ark. Ry. this court said: of our constitution common theory
The common shall be borne contributions. All burden taxed to its value. does to be ‘All’ not mean all the or all legislature may except designate, such If this legislature were so may exempt. land, whole burden of taxation thrown might upon one It means all upon any private or all property, every possible description, state, other than that to the or the belonging general cannot discriminate between government. legislature classes taxes. The imposition different discretionwith which it is invested,is ascertainmentof values,so as to makethe same equal throughout uniform slate.{Our emphasis.)[5] Co., 101, 250 In MoPac 159 Ark. S.W. we Hays Ry. said: course, [5]Of was adopted Amendment No. Constitutional in November, 1976, Assembly may classify “The General providing: §1 value than at lower percentages for assessment peoperty tangible personal intangible personal more classes of may exempt one or other property *15 taxation, may provide per of intangible the taxation for from property than valorem.” 2 provides: ad other “The basis on a
sonal property of Article provisions of this shall in lieu of those provisions amendment be to the assessment relating the State of Arkansas of of the Constitution §5 (Our emphasis.) personal property.” of intangible and taxation be is true that such as It railroads may property for and classified taxation assessed different methods and from those different officers assessing same, But the is nevertheless object that is to arrive at of tax it the value ac- to its the same and uniform cording making equal the State. While exact in taxation throughout equality achieved, cannot be intentional of inequality assessments violates the mandate of the Constitution and invalidates question the tax. Likewise, in Pulaski Board County Equalization Cos.,
American Ins. Republic Ark. S.W. Life this court reiterated the constitutional requirement, stating: the constitutionis too to bemisunderstood: language plain
‘No one . . . shall be taxed species higher than another value.’ equal (Our emphasis.) Newhouse, Professor text, Wade }r., in his J. in State Uniformity Equality
Constitutional Taxation (1959), reviews the ad valorem all tax laws of the states.6 As Arkan- sas, he states: be using classified Property may purpose different
methodsin the value the severalclasses.It is im- determining portant comparative purposes emphasize because indication found the annotations or digests cases the effect that to. ‘property classified for of taxation’ from stems purposes found in the cases on this language ruling particular context, out Taken point. in the language quoted annotations is But there is no confusion misleading. the actual decisions Arkansas court. Any statements classification were concerning 6This was prepared while Professor Newhouse was research assistant Center, School, the Legislative Research University of Michigan Law was completed during succeeding summers. Professor Newhouse states that he attempted to reflect all cases cited through the summer of 1956. At the time of publication, he was connected with the School of Law theof Univer Buffalo, sity of Buffalo at New York.
82 the deter- relation method
made in solely classification of (Our emphasis.) the mining of from the this almost As out throughout opinion, pointed statehood, the “value” in Article of word our beginning current this §5, meaning has been court interpreted by value, likewise, enacted during and legislation that inter- has consistently recognized long period years Acts 411 the time that the Constitution until рretation up Also, it 188 were is clear the Constitution and passed. from which a tax that no one provides species taxed than another be collected shall be higher a which Act clearly provision equal We with trial court that the violates. provisions agree 1969 are Act 411 1973 and Act conformi- both discussed, herein and with constitutional ty provision unconstitutional, void, thus are and of no effect. order, court, the trial with the
In final part the Arkansas Education of all parties except agreement has not (and this organization Association last argued matter in its brief), (to a avoid undue framed disrup- remedy tions) which until end of 1979 for PSC com- allows of an and plete plan working preparation implementation therein, manuals to used further that a provides 1, 1981, statewide reassessment shall begin January program order, in the from counties each year, designated using date until the program completed. furnishes suf- this remedy As stated by appellees, ficient time state-to counties by planning level achieve of taxation by adjustment millage, proper 20% ratio constitutional required, by adjustment of the four amendment. Since three agreed upon fourth, and not parties groups affirmatively opposed we approve agreement.
Affirmed. Fogleman concurs;
Byrd, concur Hickman, J., JJ., dissent part part. Conley Byrd, I in the result concur Justice, concurring. Act un- 411 of 1973 188 or 1969 are and Act However, constitutional. I that the “value” do not term agree 5 of Art. the Constitution of must Arkansas be con- *17 to strued mean could elect tax “market value.” State to 16, all to its use and still with Art. property according comply 5, However, the State some at supra. cannot tax properties § “market value” and other still at “use value” and property 16, Art. with 5 such because a comply system inevitably § results in taxed than some higher species being property other of the vаlue. species same property For stated, the reasons herein I concur in result. only A. Fogleman, in Justice, concurring part, John in It dissenting that part. Pulaski appears County Board, or at least the Pulaski Equalization County taxpayers, counties, with in some other have along taxpayers about legitimate assessed complaint disparity valuations over If assessed the state. value was basis taxes, the matter could be viewed in a county perhaps different but that is not the case. But there can light, entirely be no about the constitutional mandate to the question to General a manner of Assembly prescribe determining values taxation that would make them uniform the state and such that no one throughout species shall be taxed than another value. Art. higher equal Constitution §5, Arkansas. Hickman, however, with brothers I
Along my Byrd must dissent from a substantial the majority’s part and I subscribe to the without holding, opinions concurring reservation, I feel that that Act 411 of 1973 is con- except stitutional.
I submit that General’s that the Attorney opinion Arkansas Constitution does not that be require at assessed current market value was In correct. order to say does, that it must be read into Art. 5 that is something § not there. This has court no so amend the constitu- power however, tion. I must agree, acts have questioned been the least. unconstitutionally applied, say
84 trial court appellees
Perhaps majority, means market conclusion that value reached their necessarily with erroneous commencing premise con- of the 1868 of our constitution and that language present are not. stitution effect. Under same They constitution, were to be assessed personal real and in Art. “true value Nowhere money.” less true value said about true much is anything § constitution in- the drafters the present money. Surely than “true “value” mean val- tended that something not, If did use the lan- ue in same money.” why they in Art. Never has this court said that value guage? when the Constitution of 1868 means market value. Even effect, must assess- was we did not say State, If there is Pike Ark. ed at market value. anything *18 204, hold, that does not is that must be assessed property case, at value. In that Pike did want to Albert not Rock, have to taxes on in Little because his house pay law without the that farm lands be assessed provided refer- act the ence An of improvements. legislature required with that on lots town be assessed improvements along not that the land. This court did certainly say property to be to market held was assessed because lots, ex- that Pike had to taxes on the of the value only pay not, not, can- clusive of the That is was and improvements. be, not How can a on market value. one a ignore building lot, tract of real a town in fixing property, particularly its market value? the trial of of court and the
The foundation
the holding
16,
of this court is
that “value” Art.
the
majority
premise
§
fact
the General
means “market value.” The
that
Assembly
has,
statutes,
the manner in
in some
market value as
chosen
mean
that branch of
which
does not
that
value
determined
a
to do
mandate
the
felt
it had constitutional
government
best
to a
that manner
the
so. It
chose
as
approach
simply
of
It
of
has not
determination
value
certain types
property.
value” for
so.
it resorted to “use
some
done
always
ago,
Long
an act in
The General Assembly adopted
types
car
for the assessment of
dining
sleeping
providing
A
express companies
telegraph companies.
companies,
com-
the
taxation
these
“use” valuation for
purpose
Wells,
was held valid under Art.
5. In
&
Fargo
pañíes
Co’s.
Express
Ark.
S.W.
we
County,
Crawford
treated the matter
of taxation
express
saying:
companies,
* * *
the
One
this statute was
object
require
of such
should be
as
assessed
property
corporations
“unit
their
plant,”
profit-producing
property
in this
state used
on the
business
carrying
corporate
should
at
be assessed
its value when considered as a part
fact, therefore,
of such unit or whole
The mere
plant.
that the assessment
property
company
this state was
than the
value of the
greater
aggregate
safes,
and other articles of
owned
wagons,
by
property
state,
in this
when considered
company
safes,
etc.,
they
use
to which
wagons,
apart from
would not
pul,
in itself
us in
that the
justify
concluding
assessment was
and excessive. Much less
does
illegal
that the
allegation
value of the articles of
aggregate
per-
sonal
owned
in Crawford
company
is less than the sum
county
board to
apportioned by
said
the value
county
tax-
appellant
able in
conclusion;
such
such a
for the
county justify
value of the
state,
in this
con-
company
siderеd as
of a whole
in connectionwith the
part
plant,
usesto which it is
be morethan the
put, may
aggregate
articles
separate
owned
personal company
here,
when
consideredin
connectionwith the use
which
*19
is
“The value
put.
results
use to
property
the
property
from
whichit is put,
use,
and varies with
of that
profitableness
present
actual and
it
prospective,
And
anticipated.”
is the
of the board to
duty
assess
of the
property
value,
at its true
that value
in
company
although
may
to
due
fact
that such
part
is a
of a
property
portion
Backus,
large
Co. v.
“profit-producing plant.” Railway
** *
421,
154 U.S.
Ct. 1114.
Sup.
* **
The method
for the assessment of this
provided
was
for the
has
property
legal;
legislature
power
taxation,
for the
classify
purposes
for the
provide
valuation
different
different
classes by
1874,
5;
methods. Const.
Art.
Co. v.
Railway
Worthen,
52 Ark.
press companies * * * case of exists in railway property. [Emphasis mine.] “value” of the word referred us to a definition
Appellees first definition The very in Black’s Law Dictionary. It is: value. is use there word given or in- directly of an in object satisfying, utility called or of human the needs desires beings, directly, in the use;” in its consisting economists or worth “value ex- “value in called of purchasing objects, power or Also estimated ap- change.” [Citation omitted.] calculated worth of or any object praised property, money. include: definitions given dictionary
Other “value,” consideration, the word when economic In has a used reference variety property, which the to the connection in significations, It the cost word mean production employed. may it when or question, reproduction value”; mean the sometimes called “sound or may or the amount power property, purchasing if which the will command in exchange, money value,” in the sold, which called its “market being or less than be more case may any particular property or either the cost its its value measured by production owner; to the some other utility present word value of having mean subjective property, in view its for some purpose, profitableness particular * * * termed its “value for use.” sometimes (DeLuxe Ed.), Law 4th 1721. See Black’s Dictionary p. Furthermore, which the definition case upon dictionary relies, does not definition adopted by appellees support us would have use. That case was Thaw v. Fairfield, they Conn. 679 (1945). 43 A. 2d ALR It involved assessments for the of taxation. The Connecticut purpose *20 that case basis Court said in that Supreme for only ordinary true and actual at valuation is what the arriving property
87 sale. That and not at a forced would in a fair market bring of that court specific language, recognized, and, in the final is determined factors by many property but, best of is a matter opinion, analysis, opinion, sales. test that of market is 16, 5 that all be
The
mandate of Art.
is
property
§
basis,
value, i.e.,
and not
on a valuation
taxed
in such
The value is to be ascertained
some other basis.
basis as directed
General
manner and on such
by
full
so
that the value be
It is not
Assembly.
necessary
Meek, 127
Statev.
of
valuations
equalized.
long
property
349,
Ark.
represented appellees i.e., particular farm, property, types agricultural lands were and timber owners these lands. Unfortunately, clear, however, not before trial court. It appears assess of the manner in which values are fixed by regardless authorities, the for that classifications purpose ing must not run counter to the fundamental requirement 5, i.e., Art. that all in taxation prescribed equality ratps. at Pulaski of the same value be taxed the same Co., Ins. Board American v. Republic County Equalization Life 660; Pulaski Board 233 Ark. 2d S.W. County Cases, supra. Equalization in taxation an Achievement uniformity equality unattainable, re- constitution and all that the ideal which and uniformity. is substantial approximate equality quires Rock, Peay 31; Directors Craw- City Board Little 32 Ark. Bank, County LeveeDistrict v. Ark. County ford Crawford *21 88 District, VanBuren 149; Ft. Smith & supra;
158 v. S.W. Shibley Ins. v. American County Republic Board Pulaski Co., Equalization Life But which inequality obviously produces system supra. v. Board Pulaski Equalization the constitution. County violates Co., of Art. Ins. supra. American requirements RepublicLife to the mode rate taxation 5 extend beyond Co., 159 Ark. 250 Missouri R. v. Pac. assessment. Hays cannot discriminate between S.W. 879. The legislature tax of the different classes imposition in the it is invested is discretion with which burden. The only un and Worthen, make the same equal value so as to ascertainment F.S. Co. L.R. & Ry. the state. iform throughout 97, 7 Ct. S. 120 U.S. dismissed 46 Ark. appeal (1886). L. Ed. unconstitutional, it not because
Act 188 of 1969 is per- for taxation lands to be assessed mits and timber agricultural it use, because has current but on the basis their only non-uniform resulted an plac- impermissibly unequal of a of the tax burden on those owners ing assessed valuation who must taxes on an different species pay act, If assessments based on value. as a result more burden of taxation falls heavily upon are such another than does on equal one been an I must that there has it is unconstitutional. agree and that has that this resulted showing has showing adequate been uncontroverted. It an different 411 of entirely problem.
Act presents a manual and standards assessor to use the county requires which its use does not limit him to to be out of date. It appear It boards county an assessment. requires making and stan- and follow those manuals to recognize equalization dards, limited to them. A boards are not county judge but the stan- follow such manuals and recognize required them the extent he deems just dards “to applicable,” only Act 411. The act amendment before the statute required are for manuals and standards that the specifically provides the assistanceof the boards of assessors and equalization and the the assessors and that both assessments making or valuation use other boards “may acceptable appraisal for a which, methods in their more judgment, provide of real assessment appraisal personal equitable An board an assessment equalization change property.” an when unifor- made assessor necessary provide only in assessment of similar classes of The county mity one when it deemed may change necessary judge *22 to make it assessment provide equitable with in uniform the assessment similar classes As as the various classes of county. long basis, valued on on a uniform there has been no infringement the constitutional restrictions. The mere fact that the General that the manuals and standards Assembly required the Assessment Coordination promulgated by Department (Division) not until new or revised manuals and changed to, standards had been submitted approved by, General not does make the act unconstitutional on Assembly The face. General Act 411 of Assembly, by virtually the Assessment Coordination to submit required Department a manual standards based upon pеrtinent proper standards, i.e., factors, real estate valuation cost market con- ditions, actual or potential income-producing valuation methods and The fact that acceptable procedures. this has not been done does not make the act un- facially constitutional.
I submit that Act 411 is not unconstitutional. earnestly The of the act and the failure the Assessment application Coordination Public Service Commis Department, sion, to function well have caused the may unconstitutional in valuations of over state. That disparity or its have been with the department predecessors charged assessments from duty equalizing county county a time. Bank See v. 92 Ark. quite 492, long Hampton, ofJonesboro Ashby, 753; 123 S.W. Arkansas Tax Commission 217 Ark. 361; Meek, 233 S.W. 2d State v. Ark. S.W. 202; 84-714, 1960). Ark. Stal. Ann. et seq (Repl.
It is obvious that there is no of assessments equalization from state county The authorities county. equalization have not functioned. It be that the failure is because has not the funds or We can- legislature provided manpower. on that pass judgment question. no when obvious there can be
But it is equalization in abdicate favor authorities with that duty charged in this case shows The evidence each individual assessor. of the officials county that in compliance clearly checking Assessment Coordina- each county, representatives assessor whatever standard the tion Department accept follow, whether it was on values chose to based that county revision, manual, version, current a 1960 a 1972 or a In struck that or whatever values assessor’s fancy. values counties, within 60% of most if the assessor comes lots, the value on town Assessment Coordination Department Counties, the criter- Pulaski and But in approves. Jefferson Counties, Benton, and Faulkner 100%. In ion is Washington when it 75%. Uniform assessment prac- impossible tice is manuals and followed. updating department well constitutional standards could result application 411. is unconstitutional. I cannot Act agree *23 in dissen- Hickman, Justice, concurring Darrell part, in in I with the majority every respect except part. agree ting date of the one: effective judgment. order, his entered
The trial judge judge originally should, to the mechanics of its without regard implementa- Then, I (and of the some tion. urging parties upon in- the most add that taxpayers, important parties, might taxes, farmer, dividual, of those recipients corporate im- not to this court delayed were arrangement), privy 5 That over a of the period years. judgment plementation is, counties, lowest in 15 assessment- beginning ratio, first; then 15 the next and so will counties year, comply until on all counties comply. counties, 15 tax-
This that for 5 and the means years, counties, will from those enjoy complying payers immunity counties, with law. and the taxpayers Conversely, 15 other counties, those will before years have comply counties. done, Public Service Com-
This of the was at urging mission, to aid it in a law that has existed implementing years. unequal over 100 Discrimination treatment (The form cannot be condoned facilitated courts. judge entering against trial said he was this modified order judgment.) legislative his better The and executive branches government uniquely equipped and authorized to enact carry judicial government laws and them out - branch We, court, consciously is not. as a should not ever cross authority. majority so, line of the limits of our has done judge, good intentions; good as did the trial with intentions power. are often reason for abuses duty decisions; It is the courts to make the other government implement judge branches them. The trial was originally correct should have succumbed to the temptation to bail out the Public Service Commission from a problem it must solve. modify judgment I would the trial court's to be effective originally ordered. al, Trustees,
Mack SKINNER et
BERRY,
County Judge
J. Elmer
Prairie
79-42
Opinion delivered June (Division I)