*1 45,178 No. Company Refining
Citiеs Service Oil and Ashland Oil and Com Murphy pany, Appellants, v. Anne M. L. G. [substituted al., Phoenix], Kansas, County Treasurer of Haskell County, et Appellees. 791) (447 P. 2d Opinion filed December 1968. Vance, Liberal, argued cause, Charles Neubauer, and Rex A. Liberal, Cammack, Graydon and Cecil C. Luthey D. Mason, and R. O. all of Bartlesville, Oldahoma, Mayne, Ashland, W. Kentucky, Arloe were with appellants. him on the briefs for the Woelk, Russell, argued cause, C. George Wagstaff D. John Attorney McKinley, County Carter, Topeka, Arthur B. Lewis C. both appellees. County, for the him on the briefs were with *2 was delivered by of the court The opinion to this action Kaul, brought pursuant Plaintiffs-appellants J.: paid taxes fоr the year ad S. A. 79-2005 to recover valorem
K. in district a trial leases. After on ten oil under protest decision, court, perfected plaintiffs in an resulting adverse appeal. January for taxes were rendered
The leases in question ad pur- valorem were assessed 1965. In 1965 the leases April $669,515.00. Plain- a total of clerk-assessor poses by which Board of Equalization tiffs to the Haskell appealed taken to the State Board the assessments. An was appeal sustained six approximately which reduced the assessment Equalization $629,200.00 were levied. on which the taxes question $27,- 9, 1965, amounting to On the taxes plaintiffs paid December $23,268.32 $3,818.75 the cor- 087.07, to be claiming protesting portion alleged protested rect amount due for 1965. Plaintiffs There is no due illegal was excessive valuation. controversy form or concerning filing protests. within this action
After instituted filing protests, plaintiffs M. Anne S. A. 79-2005. to the of K. thirty days pursuant provisions resignation Treasurer after the substituted as County was Murphy Phoenix, Department L. State Valuation Property G. and the Director were substituted) Dwyer E. F. (Ronald Alvin Jones additional made parties. attached, alleged Plaintiffs’ to which their petition, protests and convincing clear that each of the defendants was shown at an assess- assessed being that plaintiffs’ property evidence prop- and personal than other real many greater times ment defendants, grant by failing and that County; erties Haskell for, an arbitrary, capricious acted in the relief asked plaintiffs that a degree and fact to such manner and to law contrary unlawful on the de- part fraud amounted to constructive such actions and equal protection of law process and a denial of due fendants failure to reduce and that defendants’ plaintiffs of the laws to the in- but was judgment, from error in not result the assessment did subjected against plaintiffs unlawful discrimination tentional the tax burden share of and disproportionate them an excessive in Haskell County.
Plaintiffs further that alleged the excessive assessments were not made accordance the provisions 79-101, 79-330, of K. S. A. 79-331,79-1406,79-1409, 79-1439and 79-1602.
Plaintiffs prayed the orders of the Board Tax sit- Appeals, as the ting State Board of Equalization, be modified to reflect the leases, values of plaintiffs’ as established plaintiffs, and that the court direct the county treasurer to refund to taxes unlawfully collected.
The director of valuation answered plaintiffs’ amended petition asserting that it failed to state claim which upon relief could be granted; that the was assessed in accordance Kansas; with statutes of that the use of schedules was lawful and proper and the preparation thereon was directed K. S. A. 74- 2441; that the schedules prepared for assessing oil and gas leases for 1965 show on their face that all considered, of the factors to be as set forth in K. S. A. therein, are considered and that *3 plaintiffs’ was property asseseed for year the 1965 in compliance with K. S. A. 79-1439 and all other applicable laws relating thereto.
Other defendants filed separate answers generally alleging that plaintiffs’ property was assessed in accordance with the statutes relative thereto and in accordance with the Kansas Price Sсhedule of Oil and 1965, Gas Properties for promulgated by Director of Property Valuation under authority of K. S. A. 74-2441.
The county treasurer that prayed the order of the State Board of Equalization be and upheld confirmed and that she be instructed disburse, law, according the sum now held in suspense under the protested payment of the plaintiffs.
The case was tried to the court which made comprehensive find- ings of fact and concluded that had not met their burden of proving conduct on the fraud, part defendants constituting or that the assessments complained of were or not unequal uniform.
Both plaintiffs and defendants offered the petroleum engineers as evidence of values.
Essentially, plaintiffs contend the trial court erred (1) not adopting values established by Yates, their expert Mr. and them for the substituting values at by arrived the defendants in the application schedules; of the state price (2) failing to give consideration real estate assessment ratio study prepared by the property valuation director in establishing ratio of assess- ment to one hundred percent justifiable value in Haskell County. taxation concerning matters like other many controversy, This court, from enactment legislative in part stems recently before rates of property assessment in 1963 of laws to uniform relating to K. S. in particular to ad taxes. We refer subject valorem 1, 79-411, 501, 503, that after January and 1439 providing assessed at 1964, shall be all and tangible property real personal factors to be establishing thirty percent of in the value. considered determination of of the leases original The disclosed evidence following assessor by by was made question director of valua- property her the state by furnished to schedules made to the were adjustments that two tion. The assessor testified daily and that Oil Company Cities Service renditions filed operators’ and that instead of 365 days to 366 average adjusted small lowered Bоth adjustments allowance was credited. she testified that used assessor further slightly. valuations depart- valuation manuals schedules prepared at in the other assessing personal property ment for of assessments of 1964 A value. that, not lease disregarding 1965 made assessor disclosed by the 1964, other nine leases the assessments of the owned by plaintiffs that the $32,675.00 assessor also testified in 1965. The decreased County, August of Haskell board of commissioners firm, all estate reappraise contracted an appraisal value; that was completed such thirty percent justifiable appraisal trial. thereon at the time of hearings but had not been held to 1965 years prior disclosed that for a number evidence of a schedule Kansas oil and leases were assessed the use equip- Physical department. valuation prepared *4 by multiplying ment at a figure computed on leases was assessed or a net figure and by sixty by thirty percent cost the result cost, Leaseholder equipment. as to eighteen percent physical daily times the and assessed at productions $800 reserves were for no deduction made average barrels of oil produced, was resulting figure or a decline factor. operators’ expense well. average of an value accepted including plaintiffs, oil industry, For some time prior more flexible valua- schedule so that modifications requested the grounds was attacked on The 1964 schedule tions could result. that an average well valuation tend to overvalue poor wells (low and production) good undervalue wells (high production). response requests industry, and to his pursuant authority under K. S. A. 74-2441 the director of (b), valuation, Wichita, in the fall of a at- hearing convened tended by assessors and various representatives of the oil for industry the purpose of out a modification of the working schedule which would result in a more flexible application. Thе schedule, result was the 1965 with which we are concerned. Dr. F. Charles a Weinaug, professor petroleum engineering Kansas, University has represented the property valuation department a consultant for six Dr. years. reviewed Weinaug the 1965 schedule and modifications, some recommended which were accepted.
The evidence discloses the 1965 schedule was again modified in 1966. The 1965 schedule followed prior and schedules was essen- tially 1966 as to readopted valuation of that equipment, except some reductions were made for and the changing prices of oil aging state. equipment lease Reserves production computed $1,100 as a varying between $325 per daily average barrels reduced schedule allowances for operators’ expenses, transporta- tion charges, secondary recovery. valuation tables pro- jected life of well from than less one year to maximum of five and contained a years precomputed decline factor of five per- and a per year cent ten precomputed percent discount factor for use of money. some,
The 1965 all, schedule adopted but not of the features of the schedule previously proposed by Weinaug 1962. Weinаug was retained County to evaluate the leases question and to testify defendants at the trial.
The variance between the Weinaug that of gives Yates rise to first contention of plaintiff on appeal. The evidence discloses both Weinaug Yates are highly qualified petroleum engineers with many years of experience in oil and valuing gas leaseholds in Kansas and other states. Both testified that oil leases are difficult to value by any method because of a great number of unknown quantities judgment factors involved.
Weinaug testified that he considered all the factors considered by engineers making analytical valuation, еngineering includ- *5 factors and he made a valuation as of January ing statutory He testified that in his evaluation he consid- making 1965. further and the statutory ered rate of availability money, production, wells, factors of K. S. A. of oil or near- age quality gas, 79-331— character, market, ness of wells to cost of intent operation, market, well, life of the permanency probable quantity oil the number of wells gas produced, being operated, water He special problems. testified that there were no particular water in the problems leases involved in this litigation.
Yates testified that he used “analytical engineering valuation” at a arriving valuation of reserves. His as his formula is narrated as follows: by determining reserves, projecting “He values the leasehold future total therefrom, them on an annual basis and the oil revenue deducts therefrom the operating get operating costs on an annual basis to the annual net income by years throughout property. schedule the future life of the He then dis- figures counts going just money. these at a current back rate for the cost of He January 1, present used 6% as of 1967. determines the or future net cash This expressed present
realization value dollars. . . .” discloses a considerable variance in the testimony record also on of the two witnesses with to the values respect placed equipment. valuation Weinaug prepared by used schedules in an department resulting equal eighteen valuation equipment Yates, hand, cost. on the other valued equipment abandoned, time be discounted back salvage, the lease will worth, to the cost of present day deducting salvaging after deducting some of the left in inventory pipe any casing well. result in consider- opposing methods of valuation equipment
able differences. under the state Valuing equipment physical schedule, as assess- applied Weinaug, produced $72,925, $19,990, ment of for compared physical equipment, arrived at by the method Yates. The method used proposed by defendants as described Wei- valuing physical equipment, naug, statutory aimed at basis for equipment valuation 1, 1965, theoretically value as of not at some January date salvage discounted back as Yates. proposed by Rodd, called as a C. a Vice- Plaintiffs also witness Charles Bank and Trust Company, of the Fourth National President Wichita, Kansas, holds a degree petroleum engineering who *6 in judging engineering appraisals
has had of many years experience on oil and loan He testified that Yates’ purposes. field, of in the petroleum engineering method valuation is accepted are and that the conclusions reached Yates reasonable. witness admitted that will be some variations valua- always there tion work in the field.
Defendants also called the of the ad valorem tax manager depart- ment of Cities Oil who introduced an exhibit Company Service the showing sale received for other leases sold Western price Kansas in 1965. The trial court found that such sale prices not sufficiently lease and data supported by geographical upon which to base properties involved herein. the summary evidence discloses that total sums intended to prоduce assessments at thirty percent value are as $666,220; follows: Haskell County Clerk and Assessor Kansas Roard $629,600; $551,280, of Tax Appeals Dr. Weinaug and Mr. Yates $221,760.
The first position asserted by plaintiffs is that the valuation at by arrived the 1965 schedule is excessive to the extent that fraud constructive was practiced on them. To support their position plaintiffs’ witness, principal arguments Yates, are Mr. is better qualified than Weinaug, and that the method of valuation used by Yates is the most acceptable, since it was accepted by oil industry and used in valuing for loan purposes according the testimony of Rodd. We are not persuaded by argument. either A careful examination of the testimony Yates, Weinaug as education, to their training and experience, clearly reveals that Weinaug better, equally, qualified as an expert the field. stated, As we have valuing producing oil leases in com- pliance with K. S. A. setting factors, out eight which must be considered as well as any other factors known by the assessor to affect the valuation of the property, is extremely difficult opera- tion. Most of the items set out in the statute are judgment factors result in may easily variations, great although applied expert petroleum engineers, as this case. As may be seen percent valuation figures leaseholds, enumerated the with which we concerned, are are very valuable. A slight difference of opinion factors, application any of statutory particular probable life of the wells or rate of decline of production, future could cause wide variations in valuations.
289 testimony and detailed The trial court heard the lengthy valuations, as well witnesses as to their methods of respective background promulgation as to the Weinaug, the testimony the state’s schedule, the application of the state’s concluded to con- leaseholds, not amount schedules, did assessing plaintiffs’ fraud. structive and force credibility weight of witnesses
Generally, are the determination of the trier of of their matters for Scott, 248, 784, 2d State v. facts. v. 201 Kan. 443 P. (State Chuning, Carter, 74, Kan. 353 P. 2d and Carter v. P. 2d 499.) pro- values
We find no error in the trial court’s rejection witness Yates. by plaintiffs’ posed
It in in stems basically variance valuations this case appears from difference of There is no the assess- opinion. evidence in ment at or fraudulently, arbitrarily capriciously was arrived or an error the absence thereof a difference of as to value opinion for interference by officers is no reason by assessing judgment 640; 203, 107 Pac. v. Ellsworth 82 Kan. County, court. Co. (Salt Bullard, 349, 77 Pac. 129.) v. Kan. 94 Finney County of assessment in such matters the function of court Generally, the honest judg- the benefit of that a has taxpayer is to make certain is so out of assessment officers and unless the of assessing ment not that officers could assurance reasonable give as to proportion is courts valuation; interference by fixing honest have been for that of their judgment will not substitute Courts not justified. fraud, op- so or conduct of in the absence authority assessing fraud. to constructive to amount capricious arbitrary pressive, with of courts authority delineation of the limited An exhaustive in the recent cases may be found рrocesses respect 592, Commissioners, 442 Kan. 201 County v. Board Harshberger 211, P. 2d Kan. 436 v. 200 5; Corporation McHenry, Mobil Oil P. 2d Brookover, Kan. v. 198 Commissioners 982; County and Board of those cases held in said and of what was 2d Reiteration P. 906. not be repeated. need is that constructive fraud was practiced second position
Plaintiffs’
County
in that all other
Haskell
property
on them defendants
argue
Plaintiffs
at twelve
value.
was assessed
amounts to constructive fraud under
uniformity
lack of
that such
County
Board
this court in
v.
Addington
laid down by
rule
Commissioners,
familiar would tend to show a in favor of the clerk-assessor that all personal prop- erty County Haskell was assessed result, value was unrefuted. As a claim discrimination plaintiffs’ “all” falls. County clearly other Haskell respect oil and including In faсt evidence as to personal property, than uniformity rather lack of it. proves properties, of discrimination With to the establishment respect trial court estate assessment ratio found as follows: study, plaintiffs’ testimony support a tax “The offered to their claim for refund applied $23,268.32 upon applicable in the sum of is based tax rate Equali- approved set Board of the difference between the the State study zation and Kansas real the 1964 estate assessment manual of 12% (applied County), justi- to Haskell which the contend is 12% the value of fiable real estate. study part “The ratio manual considers includes of оne of the only (being (i) open market) factors section eleven which the sale value on set determining justifiable out in K. S. A. 79-503 as the factors be considered in study value. Said ratio concerns less than one of the Haskell upon real estate. This seems insufficient which to base a for the *8 purpose arbitrary, oppres- a valuation and assessment'to be so determining sive, capricious discriminatory and as to amount to and constitute constructive fraud.”
We believe the trial findings the court quoted are supported the evidence. An exhibit the prepared by clerk county shows that in 1965 there were in thirty-five sales the county, amounting .98 оf a percent estate, total of 3566 parcels of real and in 1964 sales, there only forty were amounting to 1.12 percent.
The only other evidence as to assessment ratio is an exhibit in form the extract of the assessment study for Haskell County years 1951 1965. through As the trial court indi- cated, there was no foundation evidence as offered to the validity the ratio as a basis for study, in comparison, determining the degree of lack of if uniformity, any, between assessment of plaintiffs’ prop- erties and real estate in Haskell County. Plaintiffs rely v. Addington Board Commis- chiefly
sioners, supra, to in At support the out- position regard. set, it must 1961, be noted that Addington was decided in several years prior to the enactment of the heretofore referred legislation In to. Addington following we find the statement: county “. . . In the instant case the rate of assessment fixed thirty percent plaintiff’s prop- clerk-assessor at than more of the true value of compared as erty, to the rate of assessment of twelve of the market of all value subject other located in the and tax property same levy, oppressive was so grossly discriminatory arbitrary, that it constituted rights plaintiff constructive fraud on taxpayer destroyed as a uniformity fixing valuations; also, in equality the manner of the assessed illegal, thеreby it was entitling plaintiff sought illegal to the relief as to the portion paid protest.” (p.533.) (Emphasis tax supplied.) under In Addington the property involved was grain elevator assessed personal under the property assessment schedule for 1961. It from a appears reading of in that case that opinion the elevator in question was out of all singled other real properties, personal, assessed at thirty justifiable value while all other in were assessed at (Stevens) twelve percent. in Apparently, Addington the assessment ratio study taken to be adequate for in uni- comparison purposes determining formity and no attack thereon was made as in the instant case.
In 1961 all property, real and was valued at its actual personal, 1949, in 1963, value G. S. in money pursuant to 79-1406 (amended now K. S. A. 79-1406), under the rules set out for determi- specific 1949, nation of true value in money G. S. 79-501 provided 1963, (amended now K. S. A. 79-501.) to K. S. A. 79-411 and K. S. A. pursuant was to be assessed at of its value
in money and in addition to eleven other factors price sale enumerated in K. S. A. K. S. A. 79-503 now (amended Supp. 79-503) required determining and consideration thereof the justifiable value of real property. 1963 enactments were con many
The force and effect of v. Brook Commissioners sidered and discussed Board over, for it that ratiо studies provided where was held supra, determining be considered may properly K. S. 79-1436 to arrive at necessity provided for reappraisal *9 that the sale prices further held K. S. A. 79-1439. It was sellers is substantial willing to given by willing purchasers estate consideration although for appraisal purposes, evidence of value In be may proper. K. S. A. 79-503 of other factors mentioned in words, study, indicates that a ratio other in Brookover holding sales, be substantial evidence may based on is admissible value, construed to therein cannot be justifiable holding but mean that such evidence is conclusive. here,
Under not to find the the trial court chose showing parcels, of real estate study, based sales of less than one percent alone, evidence, as to actual standing other unsupported by any value, basis of percentage proper to be as constructive establishing the assessment of plaintiffs’ related, fraud. finding Under facts the trial court’s we believe is justified. Commissioners, supra, While v. Board Harshberger County action,
was an of K. S. injunction under brought provisions 60-907 many respects involved is (a), problem analogous that under consideration controversy Harshberger here. stems from the fact that had its reappraisal Ford completed of real estate and wаs on a ratio to the thirty assessment percent value, none Ford bordering while of the other counties county had completed using their and none was new appraisal values; valuations and assessments of spe- cifically five such counties were applying nineteen ratio.
Plaintiffs in were owners of taxable Harshberger property situated districts, in two districts and hospital five school located partially in Ford in other county, partially They counties. asked for injunctive relief because assessment ratios within the overlapping school districts differed hospital according to the within which the particular was situated. We held district jurisdiction court was without grant relief sought. While the instant action under K. A.S. 79-2005 is in a presented different framework, much of what is said here. Harshberger applicable officials, The Ford as those in in the instant case, were under fiat and at acting legislative the direction of the state board of equalization. we said: Harshberger difficulty power authority taxing “The courts have no where attempting proceed statutory authority contrary bodies are without *10 taxing 854) Roberts, (City Rly. or where Co. v. 45 Kan 25 Pac. statute (Sherwood jurisdiction against property proceeding their outside authorities are 409). These Commrs., County 2d Const. Co. 207 P. v. Board of However, courts judiciary. when rightly province of the are matters within the jurisdic- relating their purely taxation are confronted with administrative acts quite tion becomes limited. purpose of taxation. property for the “The courts cannot fix the of value character taxation, assessments, in their especially Matters of are administrative corrup- fraud, of judicial absence and should in the remain free of interference to fraud.” arbitrary capricious amount oppressive, as to tion and conduct or so (pp. 594, 595.) fiat bar, legislative under acted the case at have defendants value in assessing thirty percent at plаintiffs’ properties assessed pursuant to K. A. The leases S. 79-501 and 1439. as personal 79-330), A. valuing both equipment oil (K.S. all the property, to K. S. after consideration pursuant valuation factors The property in A. 79-331. enumerated K. S. A. 74-2441. S. director to K. furnished properly schedules pursuant such schedules county to the values clerk-assessor conformed 1965, now pursuant 79-1412a, to K.S.A. (amended Seventh K. S. A. 79-1412a, 1967 Supp. Seventh).
It is to have presented be further that plaintiffs noted claims State to the Board of County Equalization Board of Tax Equalization, Board of Appeals, as the State sitting while plaintiffs, the latter adjustments made some favorable neither board by plaintiffs. found lack as claimed uniformity between real
If in Haskell any there is discrepancy estate ratios and the thirty percent assessment law, offi- it is to be remedied required promptly cials; of trial since a had been at time completed reappraisal thereon; to the of the hearings according except that all property clerk-assessor. Since the law now requires value, is at reappraisal be assessed to real estate proper correcting inequalities respect method assessments. K. S. A. 79-1413a and Board Commis- (See Brookover, supra.) sioners v. that, indication in this any stage pro-
There is no record statutory the defendants without ceedings, attempted proceed find no indicia of bad any or conflict with statute. We authority re- faith, or action or discrimination arbitrary systematic oppressive made distinction rights by arbitrary in a fraud sulting upon plaintiffs’ between their and other in the as we county, found Addington. This is not to or lack of say inequality uniformity fraudulently if knowingly, intentionally made, will not provisions entitle to relief under the taxpayer K. S. A. 79-2005.
However, where only evidence of excessiveness is in dispute and evidence offered to establish a base for attempt- ing to show lack of uniformity found to insuf- be inadequate facts, ficient аssessment, the trier made within con- statutory fines, will not be by judicial invalidated intervention.
One other point attention. While the matter does not requires *11 below, to in is appear by have been raised the court it in their on claim that even specified points appeal. They now though the valuations of Yates the rejected, Weinaug are values should be substituted for the of the board of tax appeals. valuations Plaintiffs court to argue there was no other evidence before the Yates and The con- Weinaug. values those testified to except by tention is not the record. supported by
Plaintiffs’ action an attack wаs on the valuations of the board of tax as the state board appeals, sitting than equalization, rather whose Weinaug testimony valuations was offered defend- by ants to that of rebut witness Yates. The plaintiffs’ 1965 schedules were in evidence before the court. The schedules show on their face leases, that to factors be considered the assessment of oil and 79-331, enumerated K. S. A. were in fact considered the preparation of the schedules.
Dr. testified that Weinaug the framework of the 1965 schedule was similar to that veiy the proposed by committee of the oil in- and that he was called dustry upon by property valuatiоn de- partment review schedule after its adoption and that a part, all, but not of his recommendations were which ex- incorporated In plains variance. summation Weinaug’s is narrated: knowledge analytical “. . . Based on his of the 1965 schedule and his engineering Plaintiff, valuation he made of the leases owned he feels the year placed valuations thereon clerk for the 1965 were fair and reasonable values.”
While taxation uniformity of does not a permit systematic, arbi- trary intentional valuation of the a property of one taxpayer than that substantially higher valuation placed on other property district, within the same shows taxing undisputed evidence here that plaintiffs’ with all other uniformly personal valued a systematic, the evidence is insufficient to establish arbitrary or intentional discrimination against plaintiffs’ property county. in the respect value of real estate the defend- evidence this case fails to establish conduct that it con- discriminatory ants so arbitrary, oppressive grossly therefore constructive fraud on the rights plaintiffs; stituted is affirmed. judgment concur in concurring I J., part dissenting part:
Fatzer, failing the court’s that the district court did not err in opinion witness, Mr. adopt plaintiffs’ expert the values established Yates, at by and in to substitute fоr the arrived failing them values dissent, however, holding the defendants. I from court’s the 1964 Kansas real manual study prepared estate assessment ratio by the to K. S. property valuation director pursuant in Haskell insufficient to show that the assessment of real estate ratio County was value. The twelve introduced into evi- study clerk and prepared by dence as an same value. exhibit tended show the insufficient finding upon of the district court that such evidence was determining which valu- to base for the purpose ation and capricious assessment to be arbitrary, oppressive, cannot be sustained. discriminatory, Brookover, Board Commissiоners v. *12 it P. 2d was held that the ratio for in provided studies may
79-1436 be considered in properly determining necessity at of the taxable in a to arrive reappraisal property county for tax K. A. justifiable by S. 79-1439. purposes provided In if ratio studies sufficient for that my judgment, purpose, they are are sufficient to establish a basis of to determine whether a valuation and assessment constitutes fraud. (Adding constructive Commissioners, ton v. Board 191 Kan. 382 P. 2d 315.) case, oil and the rate of assessment justi- county leases fixed clerk-assessor the exhibit fiable value. The ratio studies and prepared sufficient, that the ratio clerk were to show county my opinion, of аssessment of real in Haskell was twelve percent estate officers in justifiable assessing plain- value. The action of the real tiffs’ value and at personal property of de- value was the result estate twelve intention, as to arbitrary and was so and capricious liberation v. Lyon rights plaintiffs. (Bank constitute fraud on the 376, 111 Pac. County, 496.) the State Board of Tax Appeals
The action taken results in piecemeal application director of valuations in this state our law of the taxable requiring reappraisal in one as to but personal property when it is effect placed as to estate. and efficient ad- Proper is not into effect placed require ministration of the would seem to values law given all for tax be established purposes at one time.