V-1 Oil Company v. County of Bannock
554 P.2d 1304
Idaho
1976
Check Treatment

*1 554 P.2d COMPANY, corporation,

V-1 OIL Plaintiff-Appellant, al.,

COUNTY OF BANNOCK et Defendants-Respondents.

No. 11942.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

Oct. 1976.

Cоunty Board of Commissioners had set illegal tax levies in an fashion in that it al- legedly failed to “total take into account estimated revenues from sources other taxation, including surplus.” than available alleged It was in that fact funds county budget were available to meet general levy without a resort a tax personal 1974. V-l owns and Oil real County paid in Bannock and ad valorem taxes thereon December 1974. sought declaratory judgment V-l Oil procedures that the of the Board of Coun- ty Commissioners violated part based on such violation V-l sought a refund the taxеs it had paid protest. under pertinent provides statute County that the Board of Commissioners budget, shall set a conduct hear tentative ings budget specifying adopt final expenditures funds from which shall be drawn and: law, “Thereafter, provided by at the time County the Board of Commissioners necessary shall fix to raise the levies expenditures amount of as determined adopted budget, the total esti- less than mated revenues from sources other taxation, surplus, as including available Board, such ex- determined Falls, Swafford, Ronald L. penditures with the as are to be made plaintiff-appellant. proceeds issues.” I. authorized bond Pocatello, George, Ronald for defend- S. C. 31-1605. ants-respondents. appellant’s Assuming, deciding, that but not SHEPARD, complaint sufficiently alleges Justice. violation 31-1605, nevertheless, un- it is clear I.C. § appeal This an from an order dismiss- apрellant here did der I.C. 31-1509 ing plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff’s com- timely appeal the action take an from plaint sought a collat- Commissioners certain actions of the Board of sought here in the fashion eral attack relating to 1974ad valorem impermissible. I.C. § taxes governing of statutes violative procedure sought such and also a refund of days twenty (20) within “[A]ny protest in paid those taxes it had under posting of publication or after the first holding 1974. The dismissed district court 31- statement, required by his had failed to exhaust ad- may appeal be taken an ministrative remedies. affirm. аct, the board proceeding [of order or person commissioners], by Plaintiff-appellant V-l Oil’s payer by any tax thereby, aggrieved that the first count Bannock * * * allege he deems excessive assessments on when personal property. act, illegal There is no proсeeding contention order or such authority public interests.” the assessor lacked to assess prejudicial (emphasis added) some amount we have repeatedly questions pur held such must be conceding it did Oil while *3 sued process in the administrative days that its argues not so within appeal 20 designed prior purpose seeking for that by I. appeal for is time therein determined by way in the district court of de appealable within 60 being 63-2213 as C. § claratory judgment or 63- refund. §§ protest. days payment of taxes under of 401, 63-1214, ‍‌​‌​​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‍63-2202, 63-2210, 63-3812, See, Board Fenton disagree. We v. of 63-2213; Jonasson, supra; Franden In v. 392, Commissioners, 119 20 Idaho County Petition, 325, re Felton’s 316 79 Idaho P.2d (1911); 41 3 Idaho Rogers Hays, P. v. 1064 (1957); Washburn-Wilson Seed Co. 597, Blake, 32 Bobbitt v. 25 (1893); P. 259 Co., 1, v. Jerome 65 Idaho 138 P.2d 978 53, (1913). Idaho 136 P. 211 also note (1943). that at the time We note further interpreted I.C. 63-2202 as in Franden v. § herein, triple that the assessment was made Jonasson, 792, 95 520 P.2d 247 Idaho by assessments expressly authorized were (1973). Therein held that a we Board of statute in certain circumstances. See I.C. County given Commissioners should the be Appellant 63-207. here has in fact been opportunity to its own correct mistakes and subjected past. in the treatment compliance with that stаtute was a Lacy, V-1 Co. 546 See Oil 97 Idaho ‍‌​‌​​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‍precedent condition an in the dis- action (1976). appeal, P.2d the ab 1176 On judgment. trict court for framed, any adequately sence of issue we asserts also that the tax proper performance assume the of duties payer’s providеd declaration form to V-l by v. Tax the assessor. Chastain’s Inc. prior the assessor to the assessment did Commission, 72 241 P.2d 167 meetings not state when the of the Board (1952). Equalization of scheduled and that it that some argues also “failed inform the the of full property for personal of its was assessed market value and the assessed value of the notwithstanding it was busi taxation basis, if property” and of “factual inventory exempt ness and thus under said of assessment and valuation.” provisions 63- of 63-105Y. I.C. purpose makes clear the of the provide form to with ade assessor hereby duty the boаrd “It made of quate taxpayer. information Al commissioners, meeting at the of though appellant upon I.C. V-l Oil relies section, to prescribed preceding in the 63-212, inapposite such statute is here compel proper classifica- enforce since it entirely deals with an different no property re- tion of all and assessment given tice after been made. assessment has provisions this act quired under the of Appellant argues certain upon property of assess- be the real entered property counts relate to acts of assessment and assess- personal ment roll points ap roll, out the value of of doing market some and in so board ment pellant’s personal property multiplied property was real assess- shall examine such purposes roll, three for the of al raise cause to be assessment and shall ment lowered, though raised, property assessed in Bannock cause to be or lower or which, in Also, any property was not. all of of assessment board, has not personal per property assessed at a 20 the said judgment was of lawfully board must cent of its market ratio value whereas real been assessed. to the complaints regard at all in the was assessed determine percent allegations full value assessed value simply 16.6 rate. Those cash upon rolls, made, similar entered said claim was the Court held must, except prohibited act, that such this circumstances did authorize instigation appellant of a correct valuation entered said suit when statutorily had failed to first resort to the rolls. authorized administrative remedies. and act upon "The board must examine exemptions all clаims accord- this same final count filed act, provisions ance with the also the failure warrants the same in must either allow or disallow receipts distraint and tax adequately provided (empha- manner law.” sufficiently property. describe the I.C. §§ sis added) 63-1105, issu 63-220. Since the ance warrаnt of distraint and expressly provides That statute the Board receipt point tax occur at a after authority to with *4 completion of the the of heretofore assessor, error and such correct the remedies, mentioned those administrative statutory remedy fully adequate and the is statutory procedures cannot be said to con readily Actions for de forum accessible. template inadequate descriptions remedying claratory judgment are not intended as in distraint or tax contained warrants of statutory procedure and substitute for ‍‌​‌​​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‍a receipts. other method of No must ex such administrative remedies be remedying inadequacy provided. is such See, Sims, City Cheyenne v. hausted. of However, way provide ap in this would no Palmer Per (Wyo.1974); 521 1347 v. P.2d pellant with its claim from kins, 533, (1949). Colo. 205 785 119 P.2d fis county correctly its the did not conduct Security It is Title clеar Abstract & appellant’s property cal affairs the was and 528, Leonardson, Co. 74 264 P.Zd Plain improperly excessively or taxed. the at applicable is case (1953), not damage tiff-appellant alleged harm or no noted, it expressly bar. There was inadequate in dе The claim of the future. question presented “The here the not scription property of these doc the on two equalization levied, of a valid tax nor in might as a basis for relief uments serve appellant exempt whether is not sought again county if the the future added) (emphаsis taxation.” such these same 1974 taxes. No collect Leonardson rather dealt with a conflict of Thus, a for alleged. suit claim is made or exempted proper- statutes one of which the in declaratory count judgment on this was ty in question of did and one which not. the thereforе district appropriate, and in discretion not court did abuse lawful turn now to the final count of Anderson, 57; See, dismissing it. I.R.C.P. plaintiff’s complaint requires which discus Declaratory Judgments,” “Actions for sion Appellant herein. therein pp. (2nd 1951) 369-370. ed. Vol. provided by the valuation statement the as district court dismiss- The order of the description sessor contained an unclear of is affirmed. plaintiff’s ing property appel the assessed therefore respondent. Costs to lant unable to determine whether was not was owned also DONALDSON, J., McFADDEN, ].,C. being not taxed him. does SOOGGIN, concur. (Ret.) D. im recеipt claim a lack of of notice of the J. only it pending taxation but that if had re BAKES, concurring part in Justice, description sufficiently clear ceived a of part: concurring in result property taxed, appellant might have majority portion of I concur that the was exсessive or found assessment for discussing appellant’s claim opinion erroneously includ that some was disagree However, I with a tax refund. 63-1103. See, ed therein. I.C. §§ dis- affirming the analysis Jonasson, majority’s supra, which a Franden v. prayer appellant’s rights taxpayer, The trict court’s denial оf sought rights every taxpayer in Ban- judgment which for practice legality county’s County, affected determination that the nock practice carrying take reducing tax levies to into account commissioners’ surplus surplus year funds at availability forward from one year eliminating lowering the end of the fiscal was violation next rather than expended. that at the 31-1605. I believe taxes until the was I.C. § clearly gives any taxpayer before the district court this case was dismissing this right legality prac- the district court erred determine the of that However, I declaratory judgment clаim. having tice. The statute conferred this majority only right upon concur in the result of the lost taxpayer, it cannot be legislature has mooted taxpayer joined because the since his because the has declar- question by of that amendment atory judgment a claim for a action with section, enactment of a new upon be tax refund which relief cannot 31-1605A, together authorize the granted which taxpayer because the has failed to carry surpluses forward from exhaust his administrative remedies. year operate one to the next in order tо majority characterizes this action upon a cash basis. declaratory judgment as a collateral at- prop- tack the tax assessment of V-l’s 10-1202, 2 of the Uniform De- erty. It is not. The Act, claratory Judgment *5 refund; count did not ask for a tax it “10-1202. Person interested .or merely asked for a dеclaration whether the affected person may Any have county adopted had declaration.— commissioners the 1974 rights, whose status or other budget in long violation of statute. So legal relations are affected a statute unchanged, ques- the statutes remained may any quеs- . have determined adopt- budget tion of whether the had been validity arising tion of construction or recurring ed in statute violation of was a under the . . . statute one and should The have been decided. rights, and obtain a declaration status however, majority says, that the district or legal оther relations thereunder.” court had discretion a to dismiss declarato- ry count, judgment apparently upon the ba- it alleged appellant alleged sis that no harm or paid taxes in Bannock and that damage contrary the future. The to 1974 the Bannock the clear mandate of statute. I.C. 10- § budget had set the without their ‍‌​‌​​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‍reducing Declaratory 1 of the Uniform § levy by surplus total tax the amount of the Act, Judgment provides part: county had carried from the forward Declaratory judgments “10-1201. autho- previous e., year, i. car- would rized— . . . Courts of record with- ry surplus year a forwаrd from one to respective jurisdictions in their shall asked for a next. The power rights, status, have declare judgment whether this inwas violation of relations, legal whether or not fur- 31-1605, provided part: which then § ther is or could be claimed. board of commissioners “[T]he (Emphasis added). .” shall neсessary fix the levies to raise the give This section does not district expenditures amount as determined prayer court discretion to refuse to hear adopted budget, less the total esti- for declaratory ground relief on the mated revenues from sources other than has not future harm taxation, including surplus, available damage. only or which sets may (Emphasis added). ground upon

.” forth which court refuse to enter is I. not a case in which there was ground C. 6 of the Declara- Uniform for the court to refuse to enter tory Judgment judgment. Act: Accordingly, I believe the dis- trict cоurt refusing give erred in declar- may “10-1206. When court judg- refuse atory judgment the first count.

ment may or court refuse decree.—The declaratory judg- to render or enter a However, I.S.L., ch. 13 and §§ ment or judgment decree where such or 14, amended I.C. 31-1605 and added a decree, entered, if rendered or would section, 31-1605A, new to allow uncertainty controversy terminate carry counties to over funds from giving proceeding.” rise to the year year “sufficient to achieve or operations At the time the district maintain county court considered aon cash ba- matter, pоrtions amended, 31-1605 sis.” The having statute been quoted ‍‌​‌​​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‍uncertainty and had “the controversy giving above were still effect rise e., A declaratory judg- proceeding,” not been amended. to the question i. legality ment county budgeting carrying at that time would have ended the re- sur- pluses curring contrоversy concerning year year, appears whether forward from surplus- carry counties could cash forward have been eliminated and therefore year year reducing es from without tax- matter need not be remanded to the district surplus. es the amount of the proceedings. This was court for further