Case Title: Moon Lake Electric Ass'n v. Utah State Tax Com'n

Citation: 345 P.2d 612, 9 Utah 2d 384

Docket Number: 

State: utah

Court: Utah Supreme Court

Date: 1959-10-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
9 Utah 2d 384 (1959) 345 P.2d 612 MOON LAKE ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC., A CORPORATION, AND UINTAH BASIN TELEPHONE ASSOCIATION, INC., A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFFS, v. UTAH STATE TAX COMMISSION, DEFENDANT. No. 9010. Supreme Court of Utah. October 29, 1959. George C. Stewart, Roosevelt, Ferdinand Erickson, Monroe, for appellants. Walter L. Budge, Atty. Gen., Raymond W. Gee, John G. Marshall, Asst. Attys. Gen., for respondent. WAHLQUIST, District Judge. This is an original proceeding in this court. The petitioners ask that the Utah State Tax Commission be prohibited from ignoring Sections 16-6-16 and 17, Utah Code Annotated 1953. The State Tax Commission, acting on the advice of the Attorney General of Utah, contends that the sections in question are unconstitutional. We are convinced the Attorney General is correct, insofar as the matter is discussed here. Accordingly the relief sought by the petitioners is denied. The Sections of the Utah Code 1953 in question are: Section 16-6-16, U.C.A. 1953: Section 16-6-17, U.C.A. 1953, as amended: Section 2, Article XIII of the Constitution of the State of Utah provides in part: Section 3, Article XIII of the Constitution of the State of Utah, provides in part: In State v. Thomas[1] this court gave meaning to these sections of the Constitution as follows: These "Co-ops" share much in common but their differences are also obvious. Not all cooperatives that qualify under Sections 16-6-16 and 17 are in an identical position as to the value of their lines per mile. The number of customers per mile of line varies, both as to power lines and telephone lines, etc. Some such "Co-ops" own property in addition to "lines" while others have little else of value. In fact Sections 16-6-16 and 17 do not, by their terms, effect a limitation on assessment until after the "value" of the "Co-op's" properties have in fact been determined by the assessor to exceed the "ceiling" set by the section applicable. The effect of these sections is nothing, unless it prevents the accurate assessment of property in a given case to its full value. The conflict with the constitution is clear. The petitioners assert that the Sections 16-6-16 and 17 are just and wise legislation. They feel that the public will benefit from the effect of such statutes. Undoubtedly the majority of legislators concurred in this view. As interesting as petitioners' views thereon are, this court cannot properly consider them here. The analogy to the situation presented in State v. Armstrong[2] is noted. There the section under consideration provided, so far as material, that a board of equalization "may remit or abate the taxes of any insane, idiotic, infirm, or indigent person to an amount not exceeding ten dollars for the current year." The court there said: It is not necessary to discuss the other points raised by the parties. The writ is denied. No costs awarded. CROCKETT, C.J., and WADE, HENRIOD, and McDONOUGH, JJ., concur. CALLISTER, J., having disqualified himself, does not participate. [1] State v. Thomas, 16 Utah 86, 50 P. 615. [2] State v. Armstrong, 17 Utah 166, 53 P. 981, 41 L.R.A. 407.