Summary
In Evans v. Board of Supervisors, 192 Miss. 188, 5 So.2d 224 (1941), this Court faced a factual scenario similar to the case at hand even though it involved an individual taxpayer appeal instead of an appeal by a municipality.
Summary of this case from Ditto v. Hinds County, MissOpinion
No. 34768.
December 20, 1941.
1. TAXATION.
No appeal will lie from action of supervisors of county in overruling objection to assessment prior to action of supervisors upon the equalization by the State Tax Commission after its examination of the recapitulations (Code 1930, secs. 3175-3177).
2. TAXATION.
An appeal from action of county supervisors in overruling objection to assessment lies, within time required, following action by county supervisors upon equalization by the State Tax Commission after its examination of recapitulations (Code 1930, secs. 3175-3177).
3. TAXATION.
An appeal from action of county supervisors in overruling objection to assessment need not be taken following action of supervisors upon equalization by State Tax Commission but may be taken following the final action of the supervisors upon receipt by them of the certificate from the commission showing its receipt of and action upon the tax roll (Code 1930, secs. 3175-3177, 3183).
4. TAXATION.
If appeal has been prosecuted from action of county supervisors in overruling objection to assessment following action of the supervisors upon equalization by the State Tax Commission, but the commission, after receipt of the roll, makes further changes therein, the aggrieved party may prosecute a further appeal following the meeting of the supervisors finally approving such changes (Code 1930, secs. 3175-3177, 3181, 3183).
5. TAXATION.
Where county supervisors made general order approving assessment of objector's lands, recapitulation of assessment of property in county, duly certified, was sent to State Tax Commission, the commission adopted order equalizing assessment and at special meeting of board of supervisors board accepted the equalization made by the commission, objector's appeal to circuit court from action of supervisors in overruling objection was improperly dismissed as prematurely taken on theory that appeal did not lie until final action of the supervisors (Code 1930, secs. 3175-3177, 3181, 3183).
APPEAL from the circuit court of Calhoun county, HON. T.H. McELROY, Judge.
Creekmore Creekmore, of Jackson, and W.J. Evans, of Calhoun City, for appellant.
Section 62 of the Code of 1930 is the main and general statute regulating appeals from the assessment of property for taxation.
Section 3179 provides that a taxpayer may appeal from the action of the board of supervisors in equalizing his assessment to the circuit court within ten days after the adjournment of the meeting of the board of supervisors at which the approval of the roll by the State Tax Commission is entered.
If these two sections are not in conflict and are to be construed together, then they simply mean when the decision of the board fixing the valuation of the property is made and entered on its minutes after the State Tax Commission has passed upon the valuation of the different classes of property from the recapitulation furnished them by the board, and in the case at bar, this decision was certainly made and entered on the minutes of the board of supervisors at its October, 1940, meeting after the Tax Commission had approved the real estate roll and without any changes, and from which said decision this appeal was prosecuted.
The right of appeal by the appellant under the facts in this case is certainly justified and fully recognized under the case of Marathon Lumber Company v. State et al., 139 Miss. 125, 103 So. 798.
See, also, Du Bois Lumber Co. v. State et al., 103 So. 800; Eastman, Gardner Co. v. State et al., 103 So. 800; Arthur J. Cox, Agent, v. State et al., 103 So. 800; Gilchrist-Fordney Co. v. State et al., 103 So. 800; Adams Banks Lumber Co. v. State et al., 103 So. 800; R.N. Day, Trustee, v. State et al., 103 So. 800; Moller-Vandenboom Lumber Co. v. Board of Supervisors of Attala County, 135 Miss. 249, 99 So. 823; Wilkinson County v. Foster Creek Lumber Co., 135 Miss. 616, 100 So. 2.
Patterson Patterson, of Calhoun City, for appellee.
We respectfully submit that there is one question or issue only submitted to this court by the record in this case for consideration, that is, whether or not an aggrieved taxpayer may appeal from the action of a board of supervisors in equalizing his assessment, until after the adjournment of the meeting of the board of supervisors, at which the approval of the roll by the State Tax Commission is entered, as provided by said Section 3179 of the Code. Counsel for appellant argues that the board of superisors having approved the land roll at its special meeting held on October 1st for the purpose of carrying out the orders of the State Tax Commission relative to the personal roll, and the State Tax Commission having subsequently (On December 10th) approved the land roll without exceptions or objections thereto, that it follows as a matter of law that the appellant could appeal from this order of the board.
The Code of 1930, Chapter 61, changed almost the entire scheme of preparation of the tax rolls and the equalization of the assessments, and certainly as to appeals from assessments. Even under the scheme provided in Chapter 323, Laws of 1920, in which appeals at three different stages of the proceeding were provided for, this court held in the case of State v. Wyoming Mfg. Co., 138 Miss. 249, 103 So. 11, that "An appeal can only be taken from the order finally approving the assessment, after its approval by the State Tax Commission." In the case of the Mobile Ohio R.R. Co. v. Wayne County, 124 Miss. 655, 87 So. 139, this court held that an appeal is not required until the roll is finally approved by the State Tax Commission. This matter was again before this court in the cases of Moller-Vandenboom Lumber Co. v. Board of Supervisors of Attala County, 135 Miss. 249, 99 So. 823; Wilkinson County v. Foster Creek Lumber Co., 135 Miss. 616, 100 So. 2.
There is some seeming conflict in these decisions as to the proper time for appeals under Section 10, Chapter 323, Laws of 1920, under which these cases came to this court, growing out of the three-way appeals provided in said Section 10, which the legislature, it is clear to us, had in mind to clear up in adopting the Code of 1930, Section 3179, in which it is provided that the one, and only one, time for appeal from assessments is "Within ten days after the adjournment of the meeting of the board of supervisors, at which the approval of the roll by the state tax commission is entered."
This appeal having been taken from an order of the board of supervisors made and adopted at the special October, 1940, meeting of the board, at which time it had met for the purpose of carrying out the orders of the State Tax Commission relating to the personal roll only, and the State Tax Commission not having approved the land roll in which the assessment here complained of was contained, until December 10, 1940, and this final order of the State Tax Commission and the final approval order of the board of supervisors thereon, not having been entered until December 14, 1940, we respectfully submit that the appeal was premature, and from an order of the board of supervisors not authorized by law, and, therefore, the judgment of the court below in dismissing the appeal should be sustained.
Argued orally by Wade H. Creekmore, for appellant.
This appeal is from an order of the circuit court dismissing, as prematurely taken, Evans' appeal to that court from the action of the supervisors of Calhoun County overruling his objection to the assessment of his lands in that county.
Appellant presented at the August, 1940, meeting of the supervisors a written objection to the assessment of his lands, the main grounds of which were (1) the lands were not assessed to the true owner; (2) a part had been doubly assessed; (3) the valuation was too high; (4) that the acreage in cultivation was less and that in woods was more than that enumerated in the assessment; and (5) that the improvements, as assessed, either did not exist, or were much less in kind and value than specified.
No order dealing specifically with this objection was made by the board but it did enter at that meeting a general order approving the assessment of his lands as originally made, which, in effect, overruled the objection.
A recapitulation of the assessment of property in that county, duly certified, was then sent to the State Tax Commission, as required by Section 3175, Code of 1930.
On September 18, 1940, the commission adopted an order equalizing the assessment of the classes of property in that county, as provided in Sections 3176 and 3177, Code of 1930. It ordered an increase in values of certain classes of personal property but approved without change the assessment of real estate as made by the supervisors at the August meeting.
At a special meeting of the board of supervisors held October 1, 1940, it spread upon its minutes a copy of the order of the commission, with the certificate thereto, and then, by order, accepted the equalization as made by the commission, ordered the increases in values of personal property as directed and then approved the assessment as equalized by the Tax Commission, and ordered that copies of the tax rolls be made and that one be sent to the Commission, as provided in Section 3181, Code of 1930. This was done.
On December 10, 1940, the commission, by order on its minutes, approved, without change, the roll which had been sent it, and at a meeting of the supervisors held December 14, 1940, they spread upon their minutes this order of the commission, with the certificate thereto, and adopted a further order approving finally the assessment of real and personal property in that county as fixed by the commission in its order of December 10th.
Evans, within the ten days of the adjournment of the October meeting, prosecuted his appeal to the circuit court. The learned trial judge evidently dismissed the appeal as premature on the theory that the appeal did not lie until after the final action of the supervisors on December 14th.
The question, therefore, is whether this appeal was properly taken.
The effect of the holding in the cases of Mobile O.R. Co. v. Board of Supervisors of Wayne County, 124 Miss. 655, 87 So. 139; and Moller-Vandenboom Lumber Co. v. Board of Supervisors of Attala County, 135 Miss. 249, 99 So. 823; Wilkinson County v. Foster Creek Lumber Mfg. Co., 135 Miss. 616, 100 So. 2; and Marathon Lbr. Co. v. State et al., 139 Miss. 125, 103 So. 798, is that such appeals by individuals may be taken following the action of the supervisors approving the assessment on instructions from the State Tax Commission after its equalization based on an examination of the recapitulations pursuant to Sections 3175 and 3176, Code of 1930, which, in the case at bar, was the October meeting of the supervisors.
State ex rel. Knox, Atty.-Gen., v. Wyoming Mfg. Co., 138 Miss. 249, 103 So. 11, held likewise as to appeals by the Attorney-General, citing as authority therefor the Moller and Wilkinson County cases, supra.
The case of Edward Hines Yellow Pine Trustees v. State ex rel., 146 Miss. 101, 112 So. 12, 13, reviewed the foregoing cases, and without disapproving or overruling them as to the rule of appeals by individuals, held that the appeal by the Attorney-General might be taken following the final action of the supervisors upon receipt of the certificate from the State Tax Commission of its final approval of the tax roll, which action of the supervisors, in the case at bar, was December 14th. This case also said "A similar right of appeal is given the taxpayer."
We now deduce from existing statutes and decided cases the rules applicable both to the taxpayer and the sovereign in matters of appeal from tax assessments:
1. No appeal will lie prior to the action of the supervisors upon the equalization by the State Tax Commission after its examination of the recapitulations provided for in Sections 3175, 3176 and 3177, Code of 1930.
2. An appeal does lie, within the time required, following that action by the supervisors.
3. Or such appeal need not be taken following such action but may be taken following the final action of the supervisors upon receipt by them of the certificate from the Tax Commission showing its receipt of and action upon the tax roll, under Section 3183, Code of 1930.
4. And if the appeal has been prosecuted following the action of the supervisors upon the equalization by the commission, pursuant to said Sections 3175, 3176 and 3177, but the commission, after receipt of the roll, shall make further changes therein, as provided in said Section 3183, the aggrieved party may prosecute a further appeal following the meeting of the supervisors finally approving such changes.
It is a wise and just policy which seeks to have cases decided upon their merits, within prescribed rules of law. Neither the taxpayer nor the sovereign should be put to the gamble of seizing at just the right moment the shuttlecock as it moves back and forth between the supervisors and the commission in an effort to weave the tax fabric of the state.
It is not necessary for us to determine the present powers of the Tax Commission to order further changes in the assessments after it has received copies of the rolls.
Reversed and remanded.