296 P. 406 | Okla. | 1931
This is an appeal from the order of the Court of Tax Review denying the protest of the Oklahoma Pipe Line Company against certain tax levies of Seminole county alleged to be illegal, excessive, and void.
The protestant presents the question of the right of the excise board to add ten per cent. to the amount of the appropriation made for highway purposes and to fix the rate of levy on the total needs including the ten per cent. addition.
It was agreed that to the amount of the appropriation there was added ten per cent. and that the total of the balance on hand and receipts from other sources, including state levy, automobile license tax, gasoline excise tax, gross production tax and bus tax, was less than the amount of the appropriation without the ten per cent. addition. The Court of Tax Review approved the calculation as made and the rate of levy fixed. The excise board ascertained the amount of the appropriation, added thereto ten per cent. of the amount thereof, and deducted the amount of the balance on hand and receipts from other sources, leaving the amount to be raised by ad valorem taxation, $175,731.191. The protestant contends that the balance on hand and receipts from other sources should be deducted from the amount of the appropriation without the additional ten per cent., leaving the amount required to be raised for ad valorem taxation to be $66,988.16.
This court, in St. Louis-S. F. Ry. Co. v. Bonaparte,
The protestant contends that the ten per cent. is added for the purpose of insuring that the funds collected will be equal to the amount appropriated and calls attention to the fact that in the case at bar the tax levy is sufficient to raise $175,000 to meet a requirement of $66,000 and that the ten *164 per cent. addition should not be made to that portion of receipts from other sources derived from state levy, gross production tax, gasoline excise tax, automobile license tax and bus tax. The protestant contends that these taxes are levied and collected regardless of any act by the excise board; that they do not depend upon the action of the county officials and that in many counties the county highway fund is appropriated from these sources without any ad valorem tax levy.
The protestant contends that the rule announced by this court in Hines v. Dalton,
This court, in Adjustment Realty Co. v. Excise Board,
"Where the estimated income from other sources is sufficient to supply the needs of the highway fund, no tax levy is necessary for that fund. A tax levy is not required to be made where there are ample funds on hand or estimated to be received from sources other than ad valorem taxation. El Reno Wholesale Grocery Co. v. Taylor,
The second proposition raised by the protestant is that notwithstanding the decision of this court in Missouri, K. T. Ry. Co. v. Washington Co.,
We do not consider the rule announced by this court in School District No. 85, Kay County, v. School District No. 71, Kay County,
There was no error in the judgment of the Court of Tax Review, and that judgment is affirmed.
LESTER, C. J., CLARK, V. C. J., and RILEY, HEFNER, CULLISON, SWINDALL, and McNEILL, JJ., concur. KORNEGAY, J., not participating.