5 Or. Tax 287 | Or. T.C. | 1973
Decision for defendants rendered September 20, 1973.
Affirmed
The parties have stipulated most of the pertinent facts. After prolonged negotiation as to the true cash value of property in Wasco County assessed to Harvey Aluminum (Inc.), the predecessor of the present owner, Martin Marietta Aluminum, Inc., consent decrees were entered in this court on June 19, 1972, in three cases, relating to the tax years 1969-1970, 1970-1971, and 1971-1972, ordering reduction in the amount of the true cash value of the property for such years. The amount of taxes levied and overpaid for the three years was $292,762, without interest, and this was refunded to the taxpayer January 24, 1973. In addition, a credit of $28,975 was taken by the taxpayer against its unpaid 1971-1972 real property tax on August 15, 1972. The total of the cash refund and the tax credit was $321,737. The tax refund and credit were accounted for by the tax collector of Wasco County pursuant *289
to ORS
"Immediately upon payment of the refund and any interest thereon, the tax collector shall make the necessary correcting entries in the records of his office, and the county treasurer shall reimburse the general fund in the amount of the refunded tax and any interest paid thereon, from the unsegregated tax collections account provided in ORS
311.385 ."
The use of the "unsegregated tax collections account" is explained in ORS
"The taxes collected by the tax collector pursuant to this chapter shall be deposited daily with the county treasurer who shall deposit it to an account in his records designated unsegregated tax collections. The tax collector shall take a receipt therefor."
For many years prior to the 1971 session of the Legislative Assembly, ORS
"(3) Immediately upon reimbursement [of a refund by the county court], the tax collector shall make the necessary correcting entries in the records of his office and each taxing district or tax levying body shall reimburse the general fund in the amount of the refunded taxes received by it."
Oregon Laws 1963, ch 606, § 2 (codified as ORS
"(1) In counties having a population exceeding 80,000, the taxes collected by the tax collector pursuant to this chapter shall be deposited daily with *290 the county treasurer who shall deposit it to an account in his records designated unsegregated tax collections. The tax collector shall take a receipt therefor.
"(2) In counties having a population exceeding 80,000, the reimbursement to the general fund of the county for refunds required by ORS
311.806 * * * shall be made from the unsegregated tax collections account provided in subsection (1) of this section."
Oregon Laws 1969, ch 595, § 6, amended ORS
In spite of the reference in the original ORS
"Immediately upon payment of the refund and any interest thereon, the tax collector shall make the necessary correcting entries in the records of his office, and the county treasurer shall reimburse the general fund in the amount of the refunded tax and any interest paid thereon, from the unsegregated tax collections account provided in ORS
311.385 ."
[1.] Clearly, the 1971 amendment was a "housekeeping" measure and did not change the legal effect of the prior law. This conclusion follows the accepted principle of statutory construction embodied in ORS
It is thus seen that, under the prior law, an approved claim for refund imposed a substantial bookkeeping effort upon the tax collector and upon each affected taxing district. All entries of value in the tax roll relating to the refund were corrected and then each taxing district in the affected code area (ranging from a few to a substantial number of such districts) had to make a proper remittance to the county, even though the amount involved only a few cents. Multiplied by the number of refund claims allowed in a fiscal year, the administrative cost could be high. The need for this was eliminated by the amended law and at the same time another benefit to the taxing district was sought and obtained; i.e., the quick turnover of funds received by the tax collector to the county treasurer and the immediate deposit of the funds at interest, which accrued proportionately to the benefit of each taxing district. *292
Plaintiffs have no objection generally to the provisions of ORS
[2.] Plaintiffs have pleaded (Amended Complaint, ¶ XII) that the result of compliance with ORS
These allegations were denied by the defendants. Plaintiffs' evidence in support of them appears to rest largely on the court's power to take judicial notice of *293 official acts and records and the inferences to be drawn therefrom. Only two witnesses were produced and their testimony preponderates for the defendants. The stipulations, made part of the record, lend little support, if any, to plaintiffs' allegations.
It appears to the court that the plaintiffs' theory is that a refund of levied taxes having been made in the sum of $321,737 by Wasco County, it follows, without demonstration, that all the taxing districts will suffer, particularly those plaintiff districts lying outside the code area in which lies the property benefited by the refund.
That such a consequence does not follow a fortiori seems apparent upon a study of the Local Budget Law, ORS
"* * * The reason for this is that it is a matter of conjecture as to exactly what effect the refund under either method [a reference to the Stipulation, at 3-4] may have on future levies. Much will depend upon the budgeting procedures of the municipal corporation, that is, were there overestimations of expenditures and underestimations of revenues; were delinquent taxes to be received over or underestimated; were beginning cash balances adequately stated; did more revenue accrue to the district than could have been anticipated; was the estimation of taxes not to be collected during the current year higher or lower than actual events without the refunds would indicate; were there a great many additions of omitted property to the roll which would take up much of the slack created by the refund in the current year and many other factors which could either add to or alleviate *294 the adverse effects of the refund. Only after these effects are known at the close of the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, will the effect on tax levies be known. * * *"
Although the sum involved represents a relatively large refund in terms of dollars, it amounts to only about four percent of the total county levies. Four percent is less than the percentage allowed as an arbitrary increase in a budget as an offset to anticipated uncollectible taxes.1
The court concludes that the plaintiffs' several arguments, other than those based upon constitutional prohibitions and restrictions, are irrelevant, because the Legislative Assembly has plenary power to enact the statutes quoted above. Oregon Constitution, Art IV, § 1 (1). Wright v. Blue Mt. HospitalDist.,
In their amended complaint, ¶ XV, plaintiffs have *295
alleged that ORS
"1. It discriminates unfairly and inequitably, without a rational basis therefor, against plaintiffs and others similarly situated, in violation of Article I, Section 20 and Section 32, and Article IX, Section 1 of the Constitution of the State of Oregon and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; * * *."
[3.] Turning first to the Oregon Constitution, Art I, § 20, reads:
"No law shall be passed granting to any citizen or class of citizens privileges, or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens."
It is obvious that ORS
Oregon Constitution, Art I, § 32, also cited by the plaintiffs, reads:
"No tax or duty shall be imposed without the consent of the people or their representatives in the *296 Legislative Assembly; and all taxation shall be uniform on the same class of subjects within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax."
No evidence has been produced to show that these requirements have not been met.
Oregon Constitution, Art IX, § 1, reads:
"* * * All taxes shall be levied and collected under general laws operating uniformly throughout the State."
Again, there is no evidence in the record which would show contravention of this constitutional requirement in the present case. Levy and collection are easily distinguished from refunds. No testimony has been produced tending to prove that refunds are not being made under "general" and uniform laws.
[4.] The plaintiffs have cited the U.S. Constitution, Amend XIV, presumably with reference to the second sentence of § 1 therein:
"* * * No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
It appears that plaintiff municipalities have no standing to cite the Fourteenth Amendment against the sovereign state.Williams v. Baltimore,
Plaintiffs' second claim (Amended Complaint, ¶ XV) that ORS
"2. It deprives plaintiffs and other [sic] similarly situated of property tax revenues raised through uniform assessment, levy, and collection procedures by requiring refund payments from said revenues to be made by a procedure which shifts the property tax burden without regard to, and in violation of the uniformity requirement of Article I, Section 32 and Article IX, Section 1 of the Constitution of the State of Oregon; * * *."
These allegations have already been answered in the paragraphs above, but it may be added that, in the view of the court, the pooled funds representing the unsegregated tax collections cannot be deemed to be mishandled when there is refunded from this unsegregated account a sum of money which, theoretically, should not have been there in the first place. However, accepting the fact that it was there, it must be taken for granted that every budget contemplates the necessity of making refunds and that the tax levies are purposely enlarged to meet this annual problem, based on the experience of prior years. (See reference to the Local Budget Law, supra.) There has been no showing in this suit that the tax levying bodies did not receive their levies in full, and there has been no showing that any additional levies were imposed upon the taxpayers in consequence of the refund being made. And, as has been pointed out in arguments before the court, the refund cameafter the constitutional provisions of uniformity with respect to assessment, levy and collection had been fully carried out. The refund was in furtherance of uniformity of assessment. *298
[5.] Plaintiffs' third contention (Amended Complaint, ¶ XV) with respect to the unconstitutionality of ORS
"3. By its operation and effect, it levies a tax upon plaintiffs and their individual taxpayers and the individual plaintiff taxpayers, and others similarly situated, without stating the object of such tax, in violation of Article IX, Section 3 of the Constitution of the State of Oregon; * * *."
The constitutional provision referred to reads, so far as it can be pertinent:
"No tax shall be levied except in pursuance of law, and every law imposing a tax shall state distinctly the object of the same to which only it shall be applied. * * *"
No specific evidence has been introduced to show that this constitutional provision has been violated in the present case. Plaintiffs' assumption appears to be that each levy, if placed before the people, would have to state that the statutes provide for refunds to be made as in this case. As has been said above, the payment of an uncertain number of refunds is an anticipated aspect of the tax procedures of any municipality. No statement of intent as to a levy can include all the minutiae of the bookkeeping of the taxing body; these will be anticipated by a reasonable person. No facts have been presented in the present case which would show that this provision of the constitution is properly invoked. SeeMiller v. Henry, supra. (The case of Tuttle v. Beem,
[6.] The last provision in the pleadings (Amended Complaint, ¶ XV) which must be met states:
"4. The plaintiffs are deprived of their property without compensation and without due process *299 of law in violation of the Constitution of the State of Oregon and the Constitution of the United States. The consent to the refunds was given by the Department of Revenue of the State of Oregon with the knowledge of defendant Wasco County, but without informing the plaintiffs of the effect upon their tax revenues and tax obligations, and without notice and without opportunity for the plaintiffs to be heard."
The constitutional provisions referred to have not been cited by article and section. It is necessary to assume that Oregon Constitution, Art I, § 18, was intended, reading in part:
"Private property shall not be taken for public use, nor the particular services of any man be demanded, without just compensation; * * *."
Here, again, not a scintilla of evidence has been offered to prove that there has been a taking of private property for public use, under the facts of this case. "Whether a governmental interference with private property has reached the point of 'taking' it for public purposes may depend on the assessment of factual evidence presented in a trial."Goldblatt v. Town of Hempstead,
As to the reference to the U.S. Constitution, the language suggests that once again the Fourteenth Amendment was referred to. Based on what has been written above, this ground of contention is unavailable to the municipalities. As to the individual plaintiffs, it can only be reiterated that there is no evidence that they have suffered in any way which would give them standing in court.
Plaintiffs' complaint must be dismissed; the injunction issued December 19, 1972, by the court to the *300
county treasurer must be dissolved; the bond of School District No. 12, Wasco County, filed on December 26, 1972, will be released upon payment of any costs and disbursements found to be owing to the county treasurer; and the county treasurer must distribute the moneys held in the special account, ordered by the court on December 19, 1972, in accordance with ORS