71 So. 427 | Ala. | 1916
The appellee, a corporation conducting its business in Jefferson county, Ala., was assessed by the county tax commissioner of said county on its escape solvent credits and credits of value, for the tax years running from October 1, 1908, to September 30, 1912, inclusive, to the amount of $10,000, and for the year beginning October 1,1913, to the amount of $20,000.
This aggregate assessed value, for these years, of $70,000, was fixed on August 5, 1914, in pursuance of the provisions of section 2260 of the Code of 1907, by the county tax commissioner, and was agreed to by the taxpayer, appellee; and said assessment was thereafter filed by the county tax commissioner with the tax collector of Jefferson county for collection.
On November 3, 1914, the state tax commission disregarded this assessment made and returned to the tax collector, and made a revaluation and reassessment of the same “solvent credits and credits of value” of appellee, for each of said years, fixing the
By its attorney the Doster-Northington Drug Company, on December 7, 1914, made a special appearance before the state tax commission, and moved for the dismissal of the cause on the ground that .the tax year in which the assessment was made by the county tax commissioner had expired on the 80th day of September, 1914, that the assessment became final on October 1, 1914, and that the state tax commission had no jurisdiction, power, or authority, after the expiration of the tax year (on November 3, 1914), to set aside and hold for naught the assessment made by the county tax commissioner. On December 28, 1914, the state tax commission overruled appellee’s motion, and entered an assessment against it of $15,000 a year for each of said years, on its solvent credits and credits of value, making an aggregate valuation for said years of $90,000.
Appellee thereupon filed bond and appealed to the circuit court of Jefferson county, where the state filed a complaint containing two counts, setting up the facts in substance as we have stated them. In the second count of the complaint, in addition to the stated facts, there were allegations on the part of the state, by which it sought to raise appellee’s assessed value over, the amount so assessed by the state tax commission, to .the extent of $5,000, or to the total'sum of $95,000 for the years in question, whereas the total assessed valuation by the state tax commission, for such period, was $90,000.
Defendant demurred to each count of the complaint, and assigned as grounds, in substance, that the assessment, made by the county tax commissioner became final on the 1st day of October, 1914, and that thereafter, and on November 3, 1914, the state tax commission had no jurisdiction or power to set aside the assessment made by the county tax commissioner, and reassess or revalue the property. The court sustained the demurrer. The state excepted, and takes this appeal.
The fact that the assessment was of escape properties for five years, would not differentiate it from any other assessment, or from an escape assessment for any one year in question. If
The reasonable construction of the power of assessment of taxes, and of the review thereof, should be to the end that a stable and uniform system prevail in the state; and so, when annulment or review is not sought within the period of the tax year, that matured assessments shall be binding alike on the tax-payer, and on the taxing authorities. Of course, it could not be maintained that a proper proceeding, begun within the tax year by the duly constituted authority, to assess, or cause to be assessed, or to set aside and hold for naught the assessment upon, a given valuation for taxation, may not be conducted and concluded beyond the expiration of the tax year; nor that escape taxes, coming to the knowledge of the taxing authority, may not be assessed, or resisted, beyond the period of any one tax year within the limitation of the statute.
The power of the state tax commission has been discussed by Chief Justice Anderson in State Tax Commission v. Bailey, et al., 179 Ala. 620, 628, 629, 60 South. 913, 916, and in that case he expressly reserved the question now here for decision, by the use of this language: “As to whether or not an assessment may be set aside, after'the 1st of October succeeding the expiration of the tax year, we need not decide, as the order of the commissioners’ court, in the present instance, was set aside before the expiration of the tax year, and after this was done there was no existing assessment to become final upon the expiration of the said tax year. Nor did the setting aside of this order reinstate the assessment made by the tax assessor^ * * * This board was created for the purpose of exercising a general superintendence and supervision over the assessment and collection of taxes throughout the entire state, and it was not contemplated that
In the instant case, the válid assessment made by the county tax commissioner, and agreed upon, after notice, by the taxpayer and the commissioner, and returned to the tax collector of the county, and no action for review begun by the state tax commission, or by its authority, during the current tax year, constitute a state of facts that distinguishes this case from that of State Tax Commission v. Bailey, et al., supra.
If section 2223 can be construed to confer authority on the state tax commission, at any time after the expiration of the tax year, to set aside and hold for naught any valuation of assessment of property made by the owner or any of the officers authorized by law to make assessments, it might become the source of great vexation, and of even oppression, to the taxpayer, and render uncertain property rights, and subject the taxpayer and his property to unreasonable and uncertain claims and tax liens.
A proper construction, therefore, of section 2223, in connection with section 2260 and with the general taxing system of the state, would require that this power “to set aside and hold for naught” tax valuations and assessments be exercised by the state tax commission before the end of the current tax year. This is in consonance with the holding in State Tax Commission v. Bailey, et al., supra.
The cause is affirmed.
Affirmed.