The Beaver herald. [volume] (Beaver, O.T. [Okla.]) 1895-1923, 1912-08-08
Tax Opinion by Judge Carney.

That the people of Oklahoma county
who registered a protest against the
payment OF the additional 100 percent
OF taxes levied against the property OF
the county by the state board Of equa'-
ization in 1911. need not pay that addi-
tional levy, was the text OF a decision
handed down Monday by Judge Carney
in the district court. when the cases Of
Ed L. Dunn, Samuel Crocker and some
six hund red others came up for final
hearing.
1t will be remembered that the suits
were instigated for the purpose OF OBJ
tanning a restraining order against the
county treasurer preventing him from
collecting more than half the taxes in
1911. which would have been the
amount as levied by the county assessor
and the county board OF equalization
1t was alleged in the petitions that
County Clerk John Riley had acted be-
yond his authority when he extended
on the assessment books the increased
valuations made by the state board Of
equalization and hat he should have
first obtained authority from some
other body than the state board. This
contention was held valid and a perma-
nent injunction granted.
The basis for the decision was this
In the constitution of the state, there
is a provision that all property in the
state be taxed at no more than its act
usl cash value at fair sale. Judge Car.
ney held that the property as taxed by
the county assessor in 1911 may have
been taxed at, or nearly at, its actual
cash value as provided in the constitu-
tim and that the action Of the state
board OF equalization in raising the as
sessments 100 percent may have placed
some OF the property as being taxed
more than its actual cash value and
therefore illegally taxed. He also held
that all property owners have the right
and privilege of appearing before some
equaIization board or similar body for
the purpose OF protesting against any
proposed assessments and showing, il
possible, that assessment is illegal un.
der the constitution. This wis not done
in 1911 and for that reason, the action
81 taxing the increase made by the
state board was illegal.
Whether the people who have already
paid the full tax as charged under the
increased valuation made 10y the state
board car recover their money, is a
question that will now come in for con-
sideration. IL a trial court holds that
the county must refund half the taxes
collected during the year, it will be in
a bad fix, as there is no fund available
for that purpose except the Judgment
fund and it would be wholly inade-
quate. However, it is by no mean
certain that those who pad the taxes
without protest can recover their mon
ey, it is said,
The cases in which protest was made
amounted to about 80 percent of the
levy and that amount OF the taxes for
1911 remains uncollected. Under
Judge Carney's decision, it never can
be collected. However, the case will
be carried to the supreme court by the
county officials and an effort made to
have the judgment reversed.
A feature of the decision is the fact
that the county officials are up against
the same sort Of a proposition in fixing
the tax levy for 1912. Whether the
county board of equalization should
hold hearings on the 90 percent increase
made this year by the state board OF
equalization; whether hearings should
be held by the county commissioners
whether the county assessor should go
ahead without waiting and make the
entries on his books, as is provided in
the session laws OF 1911; whether the
county clerk has anything to do with
the proposition at all how the county
board OF equalization can take any &C.
tion on the matter after il has already
az adjourned sine die and many other
phases OF the question are puzzling the
county officials. County Attorney Sam
Hooker has been applied to for an
opinion in the matter and probably
will submit one in a few days, In the