This is a tax appeal. It was taken to the superior court from an assessment by the State under 32 V.S.A. § 8281. That court found the value of the railroad’s equipment, for tax purposes, to be $90,952.00; the 21.94 miles of track and ties were assessed at $243,719.00; the real estate in Barre, Montpelier, and Berlin were found to be worth $428,655.00. In its order the court rounded off this total to $763,000.00 The various amounts arrived at were based on the testimony of an expert appraiser.
32 V.S.A. § 8281 reads as follows:
The commissioner shall appraise at its fair and just value all property acquired, constructed or used for railroad business or purposes held, possessed or owned by a person or corporation operating a railroad located entirely within this state.
The appeal from the commissioner’s determination is to a superior judge designated as provided in 32 V.S.A. § 8361. The judge’s duty, on such an appeal, is to determine, after hearing, the “fair and just value” of all property appraised by the commissioner. This appraisal by the superior judge then stands in lieu of the commissioner’s appraisal. The statute goes on to authorize an appeal to this Court, which was taken in this case.
The taxpayer’s attack centers first on the appraisal statute itself. It argues that the statutory standard of “fair and just value” used in both 32 V.S.A. §§ 8281 and 8361 is constitutionally infirm because no specific standards are set out.
In support of this position the taxpayer points out that chapter I, article 9 of the Vermont Constitution expresses the burden by saying that every member of society “is bound to contribute his proportion toward the expense” required to provide him with the protections guaranteed him by that Constitution. The case of
Barnes
v.
Dyer,
In testing statutes for their compliance with constitutional standards, every presumption is to be made in favor of constitutionality.
In re Proceedings Concerning A Neglected Child,
A heavy burden of proof rests on one who challenges a statute on the basis of unconstitutionality. Legislative enactments,
presumed constitutional, will be given reasonable construction, consistent with constitutional standards, unless the language of the statute itself plainly forecloses it.
In re Delinquency Proceedings,
The word “value” is not the same. Although there are different kinds of value and differing values relating to use or utility, for taxation purposes value is almost invariably governed by the judgment of the free market place. It is the worth established by the bargaining process of a willing buyer and a willing seller.
It may be inquired as to why the Legislature did not see fit to use the phrase “fair market value” if that is the appropriate construction of “fair and just value” in the context of this statute, as we hold it to be. The answer suggests itself in the nature of the property involved. We are dealing with equipment, track and ties, and even real estate of specialized utility, infrequently marketed in connection with its purpose, that of a railroad. Like utility properties, establishing valid market value is made difficult because of the limited market and paucity of sales data. See
Town of Barnet
v.
Central Vermont Public Service Corp.,
Moreover, there is a responsibility in construing taxing statutes to find, if possible under the law, some allowable mode of legalizing the collection of taxes justly due.
ABC Realty Corp.
v.
Bissonette,
The taxpayer contends that, even granting that the taxing statute is not constitutionally defective, which we say it is not, the procedures in this case are erroneous. It argues that it is apparent from his testimony that the state appraiser used only the market data approach in reaching the conclusions to which he testified, which the taxpayer says, both denies him the equal protection of the laws as guaranteed by constitutional law, and also is contrary to our law as set out in
Town of Barnet
v.
Central Vermont Public Service Corp., supra,
There is no doubt that this Court has several times spoken out against the use of a single method of appraisal. Besides the
Barnet
cases, there is the case of
In re Heath,
Implicit in these cases are two propositions: first, that there is a duty to
Judgment affirmed.
