Case Title: City of Phoenix v. Kelly

Citation: 366 P.2d 470, 90 Ariz. 116

Docket Number: 

State: arizona

Court: Arizona Supreme Court

Date: 1961-11-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
90 Ariz. 116 (1961) 366 P.2d 470 CITY OF PHOENIX, a municipal corporation; the City of Tempe, a municipal corporation, and the City of Tucson, a municipal corporation, Petitioners, v. J.W. KELLY, State Treasurer of the State of Arizona, Respondent. No. 7376. Supreme Court of Arizona. En Banc. November 22, 1961. John R. Franks, City Atty., Phoenix, William G. Barnes, City Atty., Tempe, H. Earl Rogge, Jr., City Atty., Tucson, for petitioners. Robert W. Pickrell, Atty. Gen., William Clark Kennedy, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., *117 Philip M. Haggerty, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent. J. LaMar Shelley, Mesa, for amici curiae, League of Arizona Cities and Towns and its Member Municipalities. UDALL, Justice. This is an original proceeding in which petitioners, City of Phoenix, a municipal corporation, City of Tempe, a municipal corporation and City of Tucson, a municipal corporation, seek by mandamus to compel J.W. Kelly, Treasurer of the state of Arizona, to pay petitioners certain moneys as directed by A.R.S. § 42-1341, subd. D (Supp. 1961). An alternative writ was granted on July 26, 1961 commanding the Treasurer to so distribute the moneys or show cause why he had not paid petitioners 25% instead of 10% of funds on hand after July 1, 1961. Section 42-1341 formerly read as follows: In the regular general election on November 8, 1960 this section was amended in accordance with the proposal in an initiative petition filed July 7, 1960. Only subsection *118 section D was changed; it now provides in pertinent part: The initiative measure provided that this amendment should become effective on July 1, 1961. As of June 30, 1961 the Treasurer had received from the Tax Commission all of the Transaction Privilege Tax receipts for that month. At that time the necessary computations were made respecting the allocations (on the 10% basis) for each of some sixty municipalities. But, owing to time consuming administrative and clerical procedures, the checks were not actually sent to the various municipalities until on or about July 15, 1961. Petitioners contend the statutory directive is clear that the Treasurer "shall pay" at the rate of "twenty-five (25) per cent of the tax collected" after July 1, 1961 regardless of when the tax collections were received by the Treasurer. On the other hand, the Treasurer argues that the effective date of the amendment, July 1, 1961, restricted payment at the 25% rate to funds received after that date.[1] Of and by itself the language of Section 42-1341 is little if any help in resolving this issue. Petitioners would have us focus our attention solely on the literal command of subsection D thereof. But this provision is only one of a number of coordinated and interrelated sections in the taxing article. In Street v. Commercial Credit Co., 35 Ariz. 479, 485, 281 P. 46, 48, 67 A.L.R. 1549 (1929) this court observed that: "* * * the statute must be construed as a whole, effect being given, if possible, to all its provisions." See also State Board of Technical Registration v. McDaniel, 84 Ariz. 223, 236, 326 P.2d 348, 357 (1958). And: This cannot be done if petitioners' contention is upheld. *119 Before the amendment in question Section 42-1341 made provision for allocation of 4% (administrative expenses), 15% (social security and welfare) and 10% (municipalities) of the transaction privilege tax receipts. Section 42-1342 provides for distribution of the remaining funds as follows: Thus the shares of the respective counties are dependent upon the amounts received by the municipalities. And Section 42-1344, subd. B provides: When this estimate was submitted in 1959 to the counties for the fiscal year running from July 1, 1960 to July 1, 1961 the municipalities' shares during all 12 months were estimated at the 10% rate. Plainly if petitioners' argument prevails county as well as state budget estimates for receipts would be distorted. The July 1st effective date was not selected at random; it marks the beginning of the fiscal year for state budget purposes. When the people of this state voted to make the amendment effective on July 1, 1961 they intended to start the ensuing year off on a new financial footing. This court will not attribute to them an intent to disrupt the results of the statutory fiscal planning machinery for the year before. Petitioners concede that had payment of the June collections been made immediately on June 30, 1961 there would be no question for this court's determination. However, the practice of making the actual payments 15 days following the month in which the collections were made has been followed by the Treasurer since provision for municipalities sharing in the receipts from the Transaction Privilege Tax was first made as result of another initiative measure in 1942. We can only assume that had it been intended to alter this procedure express words to that effect would have been included in the 1961 amendment. Cf. Van Veen v. County of Graham, 13 Ariz. 167, 108 P. 252 (1910). *120 For the above reasons the alternative writ of mandamus heretofore issued is ordered quashed. STRUCKMEYER, C.J., BERNSTEIN, V.C.J., and JENNINGS and LOCKWOOD, JJ., concur. [1] The Treasurer has been paying municipalities at the 25% rate beginning on or about August 1, 1961. Therefore only the amount of the July 1961 payment is here in issue.