Nancy Thielen School of Piano v. State Board of Equalization
486 N.W.2d 32
S.D.
1992
Check Treatment

*1 NANCY THIELEN SCHOOL PIANO, Appellant,

OF

v. EQUALIZATION, BOARD

STATE OF

Appellee, Gilbert, Johnson, Huffman Wayne F. Department of Revenue. P.C., Rapid City, appellant. 17585. No. Barnett, Atty. Gen., David D. Wi- Mark Gen., est, Pierre, appellee. Atty. Asst. Dakota. Court of South Jan. 1992. Considered Briefs WUEST, Justice. Decided June Nancy Thielen School of Piano

the circuit court’s dismissal of from a decision Board of FACTS Nancy application Thielen filed for tax school, exempt Nancy for her status (hereinafter “Thiel- Thielen School Piano en”). Pennington County Director Equalization recommended denial of the Pennington County Board plication 14, 1990, Equalization.1 May On County for Pen- Board of Commissioners County, County nington acting as the grant Thiel- voted exempt en tax status. 1, 1990, Rap- approximately June

On of Edu- City id Area School District the Pen- appealed the cation decision County nington (herein- 17, 1990, “SBE”). SBE August On the Pen- voted to reverse decision County nington A secre- exempt the tax status. revoke copies mailed tary to the chairman of SBE mail to all class of SBE’s decision first parties. interested appealed September On filing a notice of SBE for the Sev- court appeal with the circuit December enth Circuit. On Judicial to dismiss filed a motion argued that appeal. SBE circuit court statute, property." By or a assessment "[t]he them, a board for 10-11-25. shall constitute *2 appeal untimely Thielen’s notice was 10-11-43 was reenacted in 1985. It is jurisdic- therefore the circuit court lacked concept inherent in the repeal by impli- accepted tion. The circuit court briefs on cation that the statute doing which is the issue and then the motion to repealing subsequent be enacted appeal subject dismiss the for lack of mat- statutes which are claimed to be re- jurisdiction. ter Thielen pealed. Repeals by implication operate already existing,

on statutes not statutes Thus, later concept enacted. of re- DECISION peal by implication applicable. Thielen contends that the standards for Id. at 27. initiating appeal from an a decision of the governed In accord prior holding with our provisions of the Administrative Appeal Services, AT T& Information (“APA”). pro- Procedures Act The APA hold that the pro standards and vides, 1-26-31, at SDCL that notices of cedures for the appeal initiation of an from appeal to the circuit court from decisions of a decision of the Equaliza State Board of agency administrative must be filed tion to a governed circuit court are thirty days within entry chapter result, 10-11. As a agency. final decision of the SBE ar- only twenty days had file a notice of gues chapter that SDCL 10-11 establishes appeal. appeal procedures for this case. However, as an argu alternative previously addressed this is- ment, twenty-day pe Thielen contends her in Appeal sue AT T& appeal riod to file the notice of yet has not Systems, 405 N.W.2d 24 begun to run because SBE’s decision was case, that AT T appealed & “published.” agree. not We State Board of to the cir- legislature designated appeals There, cuit court. the State Board of like this one should be taken in the same Equalization argued that the standards and appeal county manner as an from a procedures appeal for initiation of the appeal mission decision.2 To from a deci- governed by should be the APA. The county sion one must State Board of that ar- based appeal twenty days file an after gument chap- on its contention that SDCL “publication” Thus, that decision.3 ter 10-11 impliedly repealed by had been Thielen’s time does not start to run adoption of the APA. This Court “publishes” until SBE its decision. The “repeal by implication” found that the ar- counties, “publish”, as it relates to gument was “flawed” because: defined as in the official coun- respects The APA was most ty newspapers.” SDCL 7-18A-1. Because between 1966 and 1975. Since that date never Thielen’s and, some amendments have occurred yet begun not run. time has applied to this SDCL 1-26-30 was However, amended SDCL 7-8- SBE notes that Thielen had notice And, argues was reenacted SDCL because of the notice letter. SBE equalization 2. SDCL 10-11-43 states: state board of shall become the ap- appellee and shall defend its decision Appeal from state board of added) peal. (emphasis circuit court. firm, district, Any corporation, taxing person, explains appeals are 3. SDCL 7-8-29 how taken agency subdivision or interest- county from a decision of a board of may appeal ed as described in part: provides, sioners. It equaliza- from state board of to the circuit court for the Time allowed of no- —Service subject Transcript proceedings. Such which the tice— peal action is situated. The shall be taken shall be taken within decision of the board in the same and manner as form serving on one of the mem- the board a written notice court, except commissioners to such that the bers of the We cannot do so. 11-43 and SDCL 7-8-29. started Thielen’s letter vane, a weather to be blown We are not accepted running. argument If that were about, of a different advocate as the breath destroy bright-line established it would conflicting legal upon to move hits deciding when the legislature for by the *3 people Lawyers, judges, and the direction. parties in begins to run for all expectation to see like the and have in an administra- It would result a case. alike. cases—treated every party had nightmare where tive appeal. This file notices of deadline to own people the gives the “Publication” legislative in- contrary to would be treatment of each to know of the taxation tent. citizens, citizen, county. in a or class of right, public is also a estab “Publication” SUMMARY against bureaucratic lished as a fortress procedure for details the 10-11-43 SDCL public the of advises edict. “Publication” circuit court from appeal with the filing an board, a state such as the the activities of Equaliza- of the State up is it Equalization. of What State Board handled like appeals are to be tion. Such policy? land is af is its What to? What of the appeals from decisions being taxed type of land is fected? What The time to file missioners. way why? certain a the the decision of made citizens of the decisions informs the begins to run from sioners There by the State Board In this board.” policy. Legislature great a social lie its decision as that “publish” did not body, represent comprised, as a to is 7-18A-1. Until is defined decided, by enact Legislature people. Our time above, that an ing the two statutes Thus, Thielen’s begin to run. does not Equalization “shall from the State timely the circuit appeal was as form and manner taken in the same be jurisdiction. We remand court had the decision of the appeals are taken from merits. a decision on the case for county commissioners ...” SDCL specifies, express 10-11-43. SDCL JJ., AMUNDSON, concur. SABERS taxpayer shall take an ly, that a HENDERSON, J., writing. concurs with statutes are to These two the decision. MILLER, C.J., concurs result. and in harmony; in truth construed be HENDERSON, (concurring). Justice We, on fact, they are not inharmonious. statutes, Court, construe these as we did not com State Board a main before, done we have statutory mandate. It failed ply with give effect to objective: To ascertain by required publish its decision as See, Nor Legislature. the intention begin appeal did not Thielen’s time to law. State, 503 334 geot v. to run until 1983). must published its decision. See, Ap controlling precedent. by stand Legisla- Assuming arguendo, Systems, 405 T peal AT & clear, absolutely true intent is not ture’s early (S.D.1987). Blackstone holdings in two further should examine rule to that “it is an established recognized duty of the It is the this Court. precedents, where by former abide apparent contra- any to reconcile Court litigation: points come same effect, if give in statutes and diction justice even and keep the scale well as considera- provisions under possible, to all Blackstone, Blackstone, 1 W. steady.” to make tion, together construing them Commentaries, 69-70. and workable. them harmonious Boundaries, 281 Elec. Territorial Here, Certain the State Ind. Glenham totally ignore the N.W.2d have this Court would County Bd. v. Walworth 10- Dist. of SDCL School unambiguous terms plain and Ed., (1959) (In under cannot mask increased taxation vari- 98 N.W.2d S.D. bring terpretation legislative guises, exposed, acts should ous activities interpret white, parts harmony). all of its into in black of our acts, ing Legislative read, we should review publication. state to see and via As pertinent, applicable statutes to determine thousands of South Dakotans seek redress Legislature. Correctly, the intent of the relief, publica- for real estate tax loss opinion holding has of activities these offices statutes, the two mak considered capitol, predic- create would a serious If, ing them harmonious workable. taxpayers taxpayers ament whose — construction, any both acts can reasonable vitally homes and affected livelihood reconciled, they be should be. Matter offices. *4 Applications, Sales Tax redress, Refund form of Petitions for filed (S.D.1980); v. Myott, State (a) appeals, spring from an inner belief that also, expres N.W.2d 786 See will strip excessive taxes sions on reasonable construction stat only but can be occasioned them utes to make harmonious and worka by (b) knowledge precise action Wagon ble. Intern. v. S.D. Welcome being boards. Revenue, Dept. so, people, And who me Hoxeng, 315 N.W.2d 308 State v. office, hither, I high express: Come 1982); Appli Tax Sales Refund you government, you people of cations, supra. offices, simply we tell as announced this Court people, of what thou wouldst do unto us so today, only the it law of may, under our state and national supported by past of this Court. constitutions, petition for Or to redress? Dakota, It is of the state South the law preclude from seeking us redress? binding upon and is State Amendment 1 United States Consti- Department of Revenue. 1889, adopted tution October South required. Publication was Dakota Constitution art. VI State § redress, i.e., grants petition right writing, In a I ended same with: recent also, Rights Congress, tax Inherent July “Come the revolution.” In See Constitu- People, document called the Declara- South Dakota State Independence, courageous, VI, stouth- provides tion art. earted, wrote, liberty loving men inter alia: people of Dakota “... South Britian) (the King “He of Great has erected acquiring protecting property Offices, a multitude New sent hither mine). brings (Emphasis added People, swarms Officers our to harrass “protect about the constitutional Radio, and eat tele- out substance.” property.” Constitution Oc- vision, newspapers, spawned lawsuits 3,267. 70,131: nays, tober Yeas: disgruntlement, outrage, reflect if not on Hurray for our forefathers. changes precipitat- swift South

ing confiscatory real estate taxes. Publica- of such as the

tion of the acts a board the multitude one of government in state New Offices Dakota, protection is a for the tax-

payers of state. The State Board of Department of Revenue