*1 161 stay part, July 17, Motion for of decree enforcement allowed finding 1957, exceptions motion for bill of need order 6, not be tendered allowed filed November 1957. Argued April 9, May 27, affirmed as modified petition rehearing July 15, denied 1959 M M& WOODWORKING COMPANY STATE v.
TAX COMMISSION CROWN ZELLERBACH CORPORATION TAX
STATE
COMMISSION
(Cases Consolidated)
272,
314
2d
275
P.
317 P. 2d
The State Commissioners Commission), applied have called the for a inafter appeal, stay, pending a decree of the circuit property reducing personal taxes of the re- court years spondent the fiscal and 1951-52, for 1952-53 property question personal is located 1953-54. County. The decree ordered a refund in Multnomah respondent property paid on such of taxes years in excess of amounts found the cir- named “that all correct and ordered officers cuit court to be having possession and tax of the assessment rolls for years said rolls in accordance with correct said parts: Judgment.” in two motion is The Commission’s enjoin Sheriff court and restrain “the First, that this County, officer and Tax of Multnomah as the Collector possession and tax for 1951- of the assessment rolls altering changing such from or 52,1952-53 and 1953-54 judgment rolls in with of the lower accordance “any county enjoining restraining court”; and second, county county sheriff tax board assessor, collector, any equalization agency, or com- state board changing ordering change from or or altera- mission, county, pre- tion in an tax roll of a assessment roll or pared January any subsequent year, or as of 1, 1957, change purpose where is for alteration allowing any a reduction in the assessed valuation personal property for a so called ‘inflation ex- factor’, cept provided by for such reductions as are rules and regulations promulgated by the State Tax Commis- January sion and in on the force 1 assessment date.” *3 questioned governing It is not the statutes appeals general provisions super- contain no a for proceeding sedeas in a like this where the Commission appellant. is the
Respondent objection prayer. has no to the first part: pro- It cites 306.560 which “No reads, ORS ceeding levying any prop- for and of collection taxes on erty stayed by taldng pend- be of shall reason the or ency any appeal any of from or of review of order the reviewing Tax State Commission order of the circuit which court,” 306.575, ORS reads: “The decision the circuit court shall bind-
ing parties changed, all if on until at all, Supreme Upon decision of Court. the final de- having charge in the termination all officers matter, on which of the rolls the assessments involved in proceeding appear correct such shall the same in and taxes shall accordance with such determination, by the refunded or additional taxes collected
he proper appeal perfected If no to the officers. is Supreme the decision of the circuit court Court, a final of the matter.” constitute determination shall provisions granting an these as automatic It construes any change stay tax roll until final determina- says appeal. respondent’s brief “that of the The tion and tenor of the above two statutes is such the intent stay provide seeks.” for the which Commission as to issuing stay objects, on the to this It court however, purpose, grounds: it that would serve no First, and, primarily, as it is asserted, because such second, may taxing some an order be construed authorities Supreme disapproves an indication that the Court judgment and does not wish it to be followed of the subsequent years. replies The Commission adoption objection suggested to the of the it has no ruling “but submits that a statute, construction of in order.” is inexpedient to announce now deem it a defini-
We 306.560and 306.575. tive construction ORS Of nec- essity, nor the court had neither counsel have time to question give adequate consideration to the whether suggested by have the effect these sections re- question spondent. not free from That and it doubt, majority for less than a be undesirable of the would pass (which vacation) upon is now it. court important question on the merits is whether inventory property any which assessment denied an for a so-called in its value “inflation fac- reduction (now § lawful under 110-335 OCLA *4 was tor” ORS by prior Oregon 308.205) read to amendment as it Oregon § 2 and Laws eh 1955, ch 701 691 1953, Laws with § construed reference to 1. This statute was
165 property Appeal assessment of real Kliks, Or adopted 669, P2d 690, 76 974, the construction there by was held the circuit court in the at ease bar to be equally applicable personal prop to the assessment of erty. passing upon This the Commission contests. In present application, opin however, we indicate no concerning ion whatever the merits. While it is true may in some that, courts instances, have been in probable fluenced their view the outcome of an appeal deciding questions of this our character, sole concern here is whether, view of the in interests power preserve we volved, should our exercise quo pending appeal. status Blair v. See Blair, 199 Or 273, 287, P2d 260 P2d 883, 960.
Upon respective rights consideration of the parties public and the we convenience, have con prayer cluded that the Commission’s first should be granted. The Sheriff and Tax Collector of Multnomah County possession now in of the assessment and tax years question, rolls for the and while he is not party litigation, named aas to this he has been ordered change the circuit court the rolls in accordance judgment with the which that court entered. Enforce stayed pending ment of that order will appeal. authority But we have no to allow the Com prayer. By mission’s second it we are asked to control taxing county the conduct of officials, and state, who parties proceeding are not to and over whom we jurisdiction. no provi have Neither the constitutional requiring uniform sion rules of assessment and taxa (Oregon 1)§ tion Art Constitution, nor the various which confer super statutes on the Commission broad visory powers county equalization over boards, as (See and tax sessors collectors State ex rel Smith v. *5 166 550), the
Smith, 252 P2d relied on Com 197 96,Or interpreted court with can be to invest this mission, par jurisdiction persons parties a are not over who subject litigation matter within ticular not included pleadings § in a case. Article the Constitu the legislature a tion is mandate to the and statutes powers Commission, cited of the define for itself courts. The Commission must determine how delegated powers it shall exercise its with reference taxpayers taxing not involved in and officials may affected outcome. law suit but who be its The prayer second will denied. conformity
An will be entered in with order foregoing opinion. v. ZELLERBACH CORPORATION
CROWN TAX STATE COMMISSION de motion. Looze, Salem, Theodore W. Phillips, Coughlin, Alfred and H. Stoloff Buell & Phillips, contra. Portland, Brand
Before Justices. Warner, Lusk, PER CURIAM. appellants, ap-
The State Tax have Commissioners, pending appeal, plied a order, for an of decree personal reducing property the circuit court taxes years respondent for the fiscal 1952-53 1951-52, of the 1953-54. decided day is identical with that this question in M and Wood Working M a similar upon application Tax Commission. State Company, corporation, as that announced in The order will be the same that case.
ON REHEARING *6 Attorney Oregon, Bobert Y. General for Thornton, Attorney and Theodore de Assistant Looze, W. General *7 Oregon, for of for the motion. Salem, Dafoe
Sabin, Newcomb, Portland, & contra. J. BBAND, Woodworking Company, M the M
In this case & taxpayer, appealed to hereafter called the circuit from an order of the State Tax court here- Commission, The circuit court inafter called Commission. decided taxpayer, and the favor of the in Commission served appeal question to filed notice of this court. The presented by application at this time is an for decision by finding “for an order filed the Commission that the by reviewed shall be Court above-entitled canse exceptions equity, need a a and that bill as case and filed in said cause.” not be tendered appropriate past it In we not considered have response presented before to a motion for this court, litigants hearing to inform whether we on the merits, equity, or in to one at law or consider the case necessary appellant other whether for the it was words, exceptions. a bill of are still of the same tender We ordinary opinion under but here the circumstances, unique. raising gen- Three the same situation is cases question now us. eral are before problem by an The arises reason of amendment to by Chapter which made ORS 306.570 was Section 1, Oregon Laws 1957. The amendment 325, consisted of the deletion one word and the substitution therefor placed of another. have We deleted word in brackets and have italicized the substituted word to show the change quote: thus made. We to,
“Any party proceedings in the circuit including may the State Tax court, Commission, a review of the order of secure appeal the circuit court Supreme appeal to the Court. shall be provided appeals in the manner taken law for equity [civil] court in other from the circuit cases, except serving filing that the time the notice days appeal entry shall be limited to 30 from of the circuit court.” the order ORS 306.570. v. Chambers, Co. 210 Or 680, I. Case 314 P2d J. proceeding at bar, in the case re was, Tax of the State Commission. The an order case view ORS 306.570 was before amended and was decided ambiguous employed language when the statute still appeals in other shall be taken “as civil cases.” equity at law and suits are Both actions civil cases; *8 uncertainty -—-hence arose in I. Case v. Chambers J. Co. proper procedure. as to the A motion was made re questing appeal to court rule as to whether the procedure governed by applicable was the rules in law equity. cases those in This denied the mo court proceeded tion and the Tax to file a bill Commission exceptions upon assumption appeal that the was governed by concerning the rules actions at law. In opinion speaking appeals our on the in merits, these tax we cases, said: “* # * appeals from the court circuit Supreme governed by are Court 306.570, ORS provides appeals
which
to this court shall be
phrase
taken as
to
‘other civil cases.’ The latter
fails
recognize
appel
the fundamental
differences
at
late review between
actions
law and suits in
equity;
provides
but
1Rule of the rules of this court
specifically
that the mode of
when
review,
pointed
by appeal
out
shall be
statute,
ac
supra,
tions at law.” J. I.
v. Chambers,
Case Co.
210 Or
Thus the of this court rule was invoked to ambiguity of the statute. regard
The effect of the 1957 amendment with appellate procedure public importance is a matter of bearing upon in tax cases which has a direct at least pending appeal. ques- three cases now on We think the procedure tion appellant should now be clarified. The yet Tax Commission has not filed in this court a short transcript, judgment exceptions, roll or bill of if such necessary, applied a bill is but it has for an extension filings of time within which to make such after this question presented. court have shall decided the respondent acknowledges in his brief appeals “After appeals the amendment such will be *9 they provides equity that shall the now because statute equity contention the However, in cases.” be taken as imposed exception respondent if “are that bills of is appeal this one had been taken at and law, the was the date of statute” taken at law before the effective argued appellant file must it that and therefore appeal exceptions one the and we must treat bill of argued governed by applicable It is rules to law actions. giving retrospective improperly effect that we would be appeal that the is to if we should hold to this statute reject equity. these contentions. in treated as one We opinion properly construed is In our the statute appeal retrospective operation. “the If the words appeal giving taken” refer to of a notice of shall be the appeal was without then the that the answer is more, after taken in accordance with statute both before and appeal would have the 1957 amendment. The notice good ensuing proceedings equally been whether the equity. it that were at law or in But we consider clear it amendment of was not intended nor did to, the 1957 any giving appeal. on the of notice of effect have, purpose clarify or amend
of the amendment was the procedure appeal on law as to show is to so appeals equity legislative conform to cases. That expressed by change intention was deliberate phraseology from “other cases” to civil “other equity expressly read the statute as if it cases.” We appeal provided procedure on shall be taken provided appeals manner law other —in equity eases. If the amendment does not mean this, it nothing. appeal given If after the notice of means was any way had enacted which in a statute been affected giving appeal, manner of notice of time or an en- question tirely different would have arisen as to whether the statute should ef- be given retrospective fect. Chambers, Case v.
The order J. I. Co. of events in supra, in the dif- pending demonstrates case, ference between the two, will the reason explain for the 1957 amendment. It is as follows: I. v. Chambers, J. Case
15 November 1954 In Tax Commission decides against the taxpayer. Chambers, I. cir- J. Case 1956 In May tax-
cuit court decides for the payer. *10 Chambers, Case v. 1956 In J. I.
7 no- June tice of to appeal Supreme Court filed by the Tax Com- mission. Chambers, Case v. J. I. 1956 In
18 June ap- Commission pellant files short in Supreme transcript Court. Chambers, Case v. J. I. 1956 In 10 Su- July motion preme denies Court Tax Commission appellant an order whether determining an should as appeal proceed action at law or a in suit equity. Case v. Chambers, In J. I. 1956 July ap-
31 files a bill of pellant excep- tions. & M
2 In (M Wood 1957 case July pending Co. v. Working Chambers) judgment decree of circuit court entered Tax against Commission. Chambers, I. Case v. J. 1957 In
3 July Su- preme Court affirms judg- ment against Tax Commission. 173 ap- pending July In peal case notice 1957 5 Tax filed Commission. August amend- date of the 1957 Effective 20
ment to ORS 306.570. chronological of events in these two record From the apparent question as to the nature eases it is prior procedure litigation appellate to was July nearly six months before 1957 1956 attorneys legislature present In fact, convened. pending amici case filed a brief as curiae J. I. in the Undoubtedly problem con Case Co. v. Chambers. procedure dispute cerning appellate which was in legis I. Case Co. v. Chambers was before the 1957 J. explains legislative intent in lature, and the amend 306.570. ment ORS
The courts have sometimes differed as to what by “retrospective” legislation. meant Sometimes they procedural have characterized a statute retro spective merely applies pending because it cases, and only though applied pro even it is to be as to future cedure in such cases. We consider amend retrospective operation ment was not in its in this case though appellate procedure even it affected future pending may ap a then case. But whatever be the propriate terminology, we hold that the 1957 amend *11 Appel ment it clear that makes Rule 1 of our of Rules apply procedure late does Procedure to the to procedure taken in this case and that the to be followed appellate practice equity. should conform to opinion In the in Marks Co. v. & Crow, 14 Or 382, we 387, said: “® * * I think the rule should where be, the the pending code amended an action or that suit,
proceedings provisions had in accordance with the
174= valid;
thereof in force at the time should he held goes into those taken after the amendment * * *” conformity effect should be in therewith. Again, quote opinion from the we Justice 21 91, Robert S. Bean v. Taffe, 89, Judkins Or follows: against retrospective presumption con
“But this application which struction has no to enactments practice only procedure affect the mode of any right person No has a vested courts. only right prosecu procedure. form tion has He prescribed for or defense in the manner being, procedure is altered time by and if this mode of right proceed he other than to has no statute, according the rule Indeed, to the altered mode. remedy pertaining to the seems to be that statutes procedure, or which do not and form of but course right, destroy are subsisting remedy all of the for the enforcement retrospective, apply to causes of action so as (Endlich passage.
at the of their date § 2 Minn. v. 286; Burrows, on Int. Stat. Converse 229.) procedure which relate the mode of
“Statutes only remedy impair the and affect and do not obligations rights, or are valid, contracts vested they objection and it is are retro- no to them operation. competent active in their It is for the remedy legislature any change or at time to procedure enforcing protecting mode of rights, provided impair such enactments do not obligations rights, of contracts or disturb vested up proceedings and such remedial statutes take they pending causes where find and when the them, proceedings which such statute under were com- subsequent proceedings menced is amended the * * *” amendatory regulated must be act. Irwin, Brown v. Executrix, See also, Or Clatsop County Oregon P2d American Lumber 729;
175 Spicer Co., 155 P2d v. 1; Or Associa 551, 554, 65 Benefit Railway Employees, tion 142 17 P2d 574, 1107, Or Simpson Winegar, 21 P2d 122 562; v. 258P 187; 297, Or Libby v. Co., Southern 109 219 449, 455, Or Pacific Darling P Miles, 220 P v. 111 604, 1017; 57 593, Or P P 1084. distinguished
This case is to he from in those legislation validity purported which has to affect the ques action taken before in its enactment. The statute prejudicially rights tion did not affect the substantial parties. type pro of these In this the normal case prescribed cedure is OES 306.545 575. The trial in the circuit court on the “issues the ease” is con fined to the record before the court as made in the hearing hearings before the Tax Commission. It is upon special that record that the circuit court makes findings. upon No evidence is taken in the circuit court any except testimony may those or issues be taken alleged irregularities procedure court in cases of before the commission. The effect which court shall give findings findings of the circuit court or to the carry prima presumption Commission which a facie validity legis is a matter within the control of the subject only lature to constitutional limitations. Under exceptions these conditions bill of would have if little any utility proceedings even if the were considered at equity. law rather than in We have before us three cases question in which similar briefs have been filed on the They now under consideration. are Crown Zellerbach Corporation Ray v. Chambers, Carl Smith and Sam uel Stewart, B. Commissioners of the State Tax Com Oregon Company mission; Worsted v. Chambers, Carl Ray Smith and B. Stewart, Samuel Commissioners of Oregon; the State Tax Commission of and M &M Wood Working Company Chambers, Carl Ray Smith Samuel B. Stewart, Commissioners of the State Tax Commission of Oregon. The difference between only *13 the three cases is that Oregon Worsted Co. v. Cham bers et al, the Tax Commission has filed a bill of ex bnt ceptions with the joins others in requesting the case be considered on in this court as one appeal in equity.
The bill of exceptions the Oregon Worsted case illustrates the needlessness of such a bill cases of this kind. It recites two stipulations which were filed, filing briefs, the special con- findings fact, clusions of the law, opinion circuit court, complete transcript “made at the testimony hearing before the and all Commission”, exhibits introduced at such All of hearing. this material could be brought before this court without a bill of exceptions under our present no rules, testimony having been taken in the circuit court. See Rules and 35.
The real conflict between the is this: parties One desires that this court be bound of fact findings made the trial if judge, supported by substantial evidence. The other desires that this court be at least as free in its consideration of the record made before the Tax Commission as we are in appeals equity. We see no valid reason why the legislature cannot de fine our function with to this respect matter as to cases in which the notice of appeal has been filed before the enactment of the if statute the record has yet re ceived the consideration of this court on appeal. We hold that a bill of is not exceptions necessary to a con sideration of the record in this court under the clear intent of ORS 306.570 as amended in 1957. v. ZELLERBACH
CROWN CORPORATION TAX STATE COMMISSION Robert Y. Thornton, Attorney Oregon, General and Theodore de Assistant Looze, Attorney W. General for Oregon, of for the Salem, motion.
Phillips, Buell Coughlin, & Phillips, Portland, contra.
BRAND, J.
This case the same presents which question has this day been decided in M & M Wood Working Company *14 Chambers, Carl B. Ray Stewart, Smith Samuel Commissioners Tax State Commission. re sult here is controlled that decision. The will cause be reviewed on appeal by this court to our according appellate practice equity suits. *16 Attorney Loose, de Gen- W. Assistant
Theodore argued appellants. With the cause for eral, Salem, Attorney him Thornton, was Bobert Y. on brief Salem. General, H. Port- Jr., Stoloff, B. and Dafoe,
Carmie Alfred respondents cross-appel- argued and for the cause land, and Dafoe & Newcomb Sabin, the brief were lants. On Coughlin, Phillips, Phillips, Portland. Buell & and Justice, Chief Before McAllister, Bossman, and Justices. Millard, Sloan Warner, Lusk, J. SLOAN, appeal an commissioners from
The defendant
judgment
for Multnomah
of the circuit court
adverse
County.
were consolidated
consid
The two cases
appeal.
by
upon
The
trial court and
eration
presented
case are substan
in each
facts
issues
tially
and col
involve assessment
identical. The cases
property
personal
taxes within Multnomah
lection
County
years
For
and 1953-54.
1951-52,1952-53
for the
years
given
1951,
as
we will refer to
convenience
petitioners-respondents
will refer
1952and 1953. We
defendants-appellants
taxpayers
as com
and to the
present
appeal
taxpayers
also
cross
The.
mission.
adverse to
of the circuit court
from a determination
upon to decide is the
are called
them. The issue we
taxpayers’ per
of value of
of the determination
basis
county
adopted
property
assessor of
sonal
years
question.
County
These
for the
Multnomah
appeals
equity.
appeals
are to be determined as
Woodworking Company v.
Tax Commis
M & M
State
sion,
“* [*] "Whenever the officer *' having posses- sion of the roll shall discover that the valuation day any of the of assessment, as merchandise stock exceeds the as trade, valuation stated in taxpayer’s return thereof and true cash by value as found excess assessor, such shall presumed subject property to be omitted to ad- provided ditional assessment as herein.” county County upon The assessor of Multnomah seized engage widespread amendment to in a re- County. personal property assessment of in Multnomah application of this concerned with his are here We taxpayers. to these statute years regard each of the 1951 and 1952 In to the County reported taxpayers as- to the Multnomah had personal property owned them situate all the sessor county. property in the was assessed in that upon paid provided taxes statute manner personal property made. The the assessment as owned year by taxpayers each the assessment date of on logs Woodworking Company consisted of MM & process in various raw work in material, and other products completion in the form and finished states of logs, plywood also owned and lumber. Crown doors, process of raw was the conversion but its work paper product paper within to wax and its finished County paper in was wax various forms. Multnomah county initiated a wide scale In 1953 the assessor prop- program “omitted of reassessment so-called May erty,” In have mentioned. June which we taxpayers notice that the of the received of 1953 each originally property for 1951 assessed value of the *18 cash value. The than its then true and 1952 was less the difference in value was asserted that assessor property” in accordance with the assessor’s “omitted quoted. interpretation of the 1951 above amendment, materially thereby of the increased the amount He taxpayer and additional taxes as to each assessment levied in accordance with for 1951 and 1952 were paid under The taxes were assessment. increased appealed taxpayers protest to the Tax and the State (cid:127) by provided the above statute. Commission reassessing process tax- with this Concurrent personal payers’ property the as- for 1951 and 1952, applied value to the tax- same measure of sessor year payers’ 1953. In for the then current assessment taxpayers appealed this instance the to the Board County Equalization for Multnomah and that board by sustained the value as fixed the assessor. Accord- ingly taxpayer appeal each an filed to the State Tax appeal Commission. The to the commission embraced years proceeding the assessments for all three in one respect taxpayer. separate hearing to each A was taxpayer hearing held as to each before a but officer, duplicated some of the record was in each case. The except commission sustained the assessor for certain disposition modifications not material to our of this taxpayers appealed case. The then to the circuit court County for Multnomah and that court set aside the order of Tax Commission and allowed refunds, plus taxpayer. interest thereon, to each presented
Several issues were to the trial court parties both and renewed here. Our view of the requires only case that we consider one; that is, employed by basis assessor establish his ver- property sion of the true cash value of the of the tax- payers years question. for each of the To make this simply determination the assessor an caused account- ant taxpayers to examine the books of the as of the assessment dates for 1951 and 1952. The assessor greater found that the book value was than the value previously years. assessed for those two Without con- any sideration of other factor the assessor concluded equivalent book value in each instance was of true cash value as defined the statute. We thereby reach the crux of these cases. The assessor, and now the insist that commission, book value is the statutory regard any true cash value without other They factor. ask that we so hold as a matter of law. For reasons to be related we cannot concur. *19 position approach first commission’s
We
ap
uniformity
point
It
of taxation.
of view of
from the
equal
pears
assessment
that uniform
fundamental
equal
property
an essential
of
value is
of
and taxation
Oregon
taxation,
on
limitations
of our constitutional
statutory
§
and of
restric
1;
Art IX,
Constitution,
objective of
§
“The ultimate
tions :
OCLA.
110-101,
bring
appraisement
about the
is to
and assessment
just
government in
rela
of the cost of
distribution
taxpayer’s property.”
tionship
value of each
to the
Appeal
Ellis
the the $1.25 uniformity required renders in assessment and unequal, tax in this so of taxation the rate respect provision above constitutional violates § 1].” [Art quoted IX, principles re apply in hand to the case To these clear The record is quires the evidence. reference to industry uniformity within the timber no that there is accounting manner and in the to the methods of various com on the books are reflected which costs greater taxpayers. including im panies, these Of of raw portance, in the cost wide variation there is logs, primarily variation is likewise which materials, respective and other books of these in the reflected knowledge taxpayers. and the evidence Both common logs sharply acquisition did that the cost of establish years question, during of course, which, fluctuate reflected in the books. in value as factor is a material diversity perhaps of cost is found Equal, more, acquisition. example, For and manner the time
185 frequently these concerns that evidence would establish acquire In a eruise basis. a tract of timber on would purchase price the timber would of other words the given governed in the tract amount the estimated example feet. 10,000,000 If, or block of timber, developed there was an excess amount it that in fact, of harvested after the removal of timber which was it would be entered on the books the estimated amounts, company acquiring at zero cost. On the other of the open acquired at the same time in the timber hand, acquisition from other sources could have an market or per as much as thousand the extreme. cost of $125 acquired were common. Lesser differences Timber prices prior sharp to the advance timber the late substantially of show a different would, course, forties acquired that current market in cost from on the day year and 1952. on the assessment of each Thus, logs quality specie equal appear the same would substantially on the books at variable costs. any apparent given
It that on is, therefore, as day taxpayer log one could have rafts in hand sessment nearby very with a low while the owner of the raft cost, substantially logs acquired similar could have with high prices. In either them at medium event the equal a of book value would not afford uniform or use appear and taxation. It should basis of assessment equally in cost of the clear variation raw appear step processing must in each to the material completion. state equal
It can be said with force such method comply statutory could not with the defi- of valuation may This definition nition of true cash value. bear “* * * property repeating: the amount such would voluntary ordinary in the at a sale made sell for taldng course of into consideration its earn- business, ing power and usefulness under normal conditions.” appli- § we have OCLA. As 110-335, indicated, cation of book value allows no differential for different acquisition logs. costs for the The same is true bookkeeping employed by of the methods these and taxpayers transportation, to record costs of other scaling, logging costs of roads other material factors that enter into eventual total cost. The evidence company may charge reflects that one these costs into logs; separately capitalize its cost others would cer- *21 expenditures. tain of these Each such difference would given in reflect different value the books of the com- Taxpayer Woodworking pany. Company oper- M M& plants upon profit-sharing a ates some of its It basis. thereby required adjustments to make book was and logs processed plants allocate costs in those in a substantially logs manner different from that for processed plants. materials at other given day log given On a assessment a hemlock grade relatively scale would have a determinable true cash value as above defined. From what has been it that said is obvious such value could and the be, frequently materially it evidence indicates is, differ- log equal quality ent from the cost of a on the books taxpayer. logs, either This variation in cost of together processing, in with variance the cost of also would reflect the book evidence, cost value product. given quantity ply- of the finished Thus may paper taxpayer per wood or have cost one $100 taxpayer per adopt unit and another unit. to Yet, $80 theory required say we would the commission’s to to the true cash value is each, to one and $100 $80 to the other.
187 position justify attempts its commission The taxpayers value contending that the book conceded to cer- -withreference value with true cash coincide did goods. tax- The finished the items listed tain of might by saying coincidence respond same payers a hat to from prevail drew numbers if the assessor justify attempts to The commission fix the valuation. by referring lan- us to certain result, however, 202 Knappton Chambers, v. guage Co. Towboat P 763. P2d 277 425, 702, 207 Or 618, 629, Or Knappton on quotation case relied from simply as follows: is commission Bailey Megan, 102 F2d 651, “In the case of it is stated: “ clearly at was within result arrived ‘If the particular permissible discretion, of their limits unimportant. If the result would seem method used was clearly wrong, used would save method ”it.’ R. Brown, Trunk Co. v. And Western Grand Supp F the court said: 784, 792, “ ‘* * * we are convinced that Furthermore, and dried the Tax there is no cut formula any obliged nor there is follow, Commission solely percentage question it must use. The lies gross *22 not which must culminate result, in the ” injustice or over-assessment.’ just language quoted, without would more, Even if the apply the it still is of little avail to commission. Here, very seen, we have the method used to determine Knapp- produces poor a result. in the However, value this court there ton case it is to be observed taxpayer that the had not sustained the burden held upon showing imposed proceeding of him that its determining than of value was more accurate method by employed the one the commission. Bach measure by component of considered the court was value of many authority That is not factors. case to establish good happenstance poor that a result a from method Preceding an will validate assessment so made. quoted, by language this court, Justice said: Perry, “* * any *. Therefore, assessment relative study to true cash value there must be a basic of the matter which assessed, information, combined judgment weight given as to with to be to each affecting or factor element in a value, results find- ing the true cash value.” of argued companies The commission “In also that: petitioner’s, the size of the accountants are well aware practices every attempt used, of standard and make * # practices accordingly adhere these kept are on books a “cost or market, whichever is lower” and that basis the values reflected in the books therefore, conservative. The are, evidence before us refutes such The contention. evidence reflects that accounting practice no there is standardized of method industry. already within the haveWe referred to accounting by of differences methods utilized these taxpayers and others. Thus, the evidence establishes given pile given quantity that a of veneer or a of raw may only paper varying have book values rea varying son of costs rawof but materials, also varying allocating reason methods costs within accounting system particular manufacturer. authority, The commission has cited no us to either at law in the technical fields assessment position. previ which sustains its valuation, subject ous decisions this court that touch on the contrary Ankeny Blakley, would establish a view.
189 involving the a case assessed 74 was 485, 44 P 78,Or that hook It there contended of hank stock. was value than “true cash the test value rather value should he of hy assessing per- required statute for the value” property. adhere to this The declined to sonal court determining theory and other factors considered persuasive opinion The is hook cash value. true synonymous. are not Cit- and value value true cash Equalization, 109 669, Nat. Bank v. Board Or izens’ of held the 222 It is there 341, P is a similar case. taxpaying bank in real estate the amount invested determining value the true cash not conclusive of such real estate. Heating Co.,
Tax Com. v. Consumers’ 93, 207 Or 887, 294 P2d the valuation of central heat involved acquired hy ing plant in Klamath Palls. It was the very taxpaying aat low cost. The owner commission resisted, in that case court sustained, taxpayer attempt plant at of the to value the cost its value. hook Company facts in I. 210 Chambers, The J. Case closely parallel 256, P2d facts of this Or county assessor of that case Multnomah case. In parts supplies County had a stock reassessed taxpayer supply repair retail maintained taxpayer. The assessor utilized the same of the outlets as in this. He took hook that case method valuation parts, this is true cash value, all said such value that a pay. in the case disclosed substan- evidence inventory parts was main- portion obsolete tial repair parts provide for old machines still tained inventory obsolete The value in service. amount, they equal for which were parts could carried on the In that books. case the court decided particularly controlling *24 three that issues are here: (1) That the commission has the burden of proving rect; original that the assessment was not cor-
(2) say, That are “We unable to as a matter frequency might of with what law, book value happen to coincide with true cash value. But we factory are convinced that a manufacturer’s cost, applied inventory, when an entire some items many years, of which have been unsalable for does agree not reflect true cash value. We that such may cost ap- evidence of but we value, cannot prove it as the sole measure of value in the face (210 of substantial evidence of obsolescence”; atOr 708) (3) county (and “That when the thereafter the commission) er’s rely exclusively petition- chose to on factory petitioners cost, and showed that its factory proper cost did not make allowance for taxing the obsolescence, come authorities failed to over- presumption original the in favor of the as- proof In sessment. the absence of of an undervalu- original (210 ation, the assessment must stand.” 711) at Or It is of true, course, the court is not now con- cerned with principle obsolescence. However, is identical. Here the proc- assessor has, the selfsame inventory assessed an ess, entire at book or value, regard without cost, to the deviations that did exist. The evidence we have mentioned is conclusive causing the factors this deviation from true cash value in recognizable this case are as material and as obsolescence in the Case decision. Appeal (158 supra 689),
In Kliks, Or Jus- of ordinarily means cash value Bossman said: “True tice receive in event his which an owner should the sum power through property of taken exercise utility, public a or the amount which domain, eminent establishing employ rate base.” if could owner, Consequently our have extended research into these we as as into the areas the law well fields concerning valuation valuation of stocks of valuations, estate companies, valuation loss insurance unlisted problems. purposes In no instance have and similar recognized authority, court ac- either or found we counting appraisl that utilize book value, rules equivalent true cash In fact, as the value. such, expression we have been most clear-cut able Proceedings subject is in the 1951 Annual find on *25 Assessing In National Association of Officers. of the by given paper of the Tax the state a Commissioner find we this comment: of Connecticut good that the “It is true within frame-work of theory accounting room there is for variation in handling books, items on the some do not books accounting theory. of in all cases dictates follow the through a formula which will cut these Therefore, differences and assemble values in with accordance blindly assuming is far than uniform rules better figures appear on that whatever the books must be proper.” correct and aptly supra, Chambers,
It was stated Case that say frequently as a of law how cannot matter book we may cash with true value. We hold coincide value statutory requirement the not meet these it does cases. previously held the have commission
We years proof of for assessment the burden bore 1951 and 1952. The same would not be true for 1953, appeal original an which was from an assessment. In presumed proper such case the assessment is and the taxpayer proof. Appeal must bear the burden of In re supra; Washington-Oregon Kliks, Investment Com pany County, v. Jackson 47, 131 Or P2d 962. How taxpayers we believe the ever, in this have, instance, accept sustained burden. this We cannot the thesis by advanced the commission that book value as a is, equivalent matter of of true law, cash value as quoted. defined the statute we have think the We previously explain inadequacy reasons stated such a or rule. test there is However, one other factor prompts equally that also us to conclude that the rule is unacceptable original for assessment. The assessments January are to be made as of the value of 1 of each year. The record in this case reflects that book value applied property question some would price dating prior reflect a or cost to the assessment date. This could be for a matter of a few weeks or to years. an extreme of about two Value costs entered prior several months to the assessment date could not, necessity, equal day. value on that This would be widely particularly fluctuating true of the market industry has existed in the timber which the several years appeal prior involved thereto.
By appeal taxpayers their cross assert that year allowed the trial court for the tax relief 1953-54 They complete. contend that there was “dis- *26 against petitioners in the crimination assessment of disproportion- which assessment was inventories, their ally high compared prop- as to assessments of real erty.” support charge of To tax- discrimination inflationary payers ap- of an evidence submit factor plied property to the assessment real to conform requirement § to the “normal conditions” of 110-335, interpreted by Appeal supra, Kliks, which OCLA, personal applied prop- was to not the assessment erty. They also indicate that the submit evidence to true cash value of real estate fixed at a lower was percentage personal of market value than was true of property; accordingly, personal property that, was higher respect a assessed at ratio to its value true property. than real taxpayers
The concede that assessor, may and the use different methods as commission, sessment true value determine cash of distinct property. They classes of do that contend the method by used in this resulted in assessor, case, discrimi placed upon personal prop nation in the value their erty comparison property valuation of real County generally. Taxpayers within Multnomah state: complaining are “Petitioners not about but methods, taxpayers about results.” In this issue also bear the proof. presumption burden of The that the assess properly WasMngton-Oregon ment has made. In been Company County, supra (170 vestment v. Jackson Or 58). case That holds that burden must met be convincing. charged evidence that is clear and It is not taxpayers’ personal property was assessed a applied method or a different different ratio was personal property county. than to it to other within the disposition appeal require Our of this cross does that we decide that the same ratio of assessment must applied personal property. to real only transcript
The evidence before is the us hearing made record before officer of com mission. record leaves much to be desired in the *27 194 establish, by
way contentions made to the of evidence documentary taxpayers. and other charts It contains purporting by prepared to dem- the witnesses evidence inflationary comparative trends of real the onstrate products compared property timber and timber to as periods covering knowl- time. The basic substantial upon necessary pass edge an eco- to enable a court to lacking. significance question It would of such nomic analysis opinion prolong with an profit this no one to say opinions that the it to Suffice of this evidence. instances based in some submitted, witnesses of the and without upon questionable of information sources recognized, studies, authoritative economic to reference accept a matter enable a court insufficient to are prop- inflationary personal fluctuations of law the taxpayers. cer- erty The is most same claimed relationship attempt tainly to establish true of the property. personal We real value between nothing us and as made before the record but have say taxpayers have that the cannot that record we upon placed them to establish the burden sustained charged. the discrimination considered; other issue be remains one There refunds taxpayers interest on the entitled to are viz., supra, Company Chambers, In I. Case allowed? J. and determined same issue considered court days paid after from 30 should that interest urges The commission filing for refund. claim of the decision. We have ex overrule Case we now that authority presented argument and find amined argument to the commission’s added little has been case mentioned. in the considered was not carefully and we are at that time considered was issue change The circuit that decision. mind to of a court entered before tbe decision decrees, Case was handed allowed interest down, from date the re- spective payments of taxes were made. The decrees provide therefore, be modified to that interest must, paid beginning days shall be from a date after the *28 Except claims refund made. were as so modified decree each case affirmed.