The Key West citizen. [volume] (Key West, Fla.) 1879-current, 1936-04-21
ADJUSTMENTSBY
TAX BOARDS ARE
AIRED In COURT
SUPREME COURT MEMBERS
GIVE DECISION IN PRO-
cEEDINCS SUBMITTED BY
VARIOUS COUNTIES

adjustment boards in the counties
of the state there have been a
number of cases brought into the
courts relative to the matter Of
making these adjustments.
One of these eases, in Lake
county, was appealed from the
circuit court, and taken to the
supreme court for decision. This
decision was written by Justice
Davis and cOncurred in by Chief
Justice Whitfield and Justices Ell
lis and Brown, with Justices Ter
rell and Buford dissenting.
Justice Davis writes a lengthy
analysis of the matter at issue and
continues specifically with the
following, which are the salient
excerpts from the decision:
81 am of the opinion therefore
that insofar as Chapter 17406.
Acts of 1886, authorizes the COM
promise and adjustment of the
amount required to be paid for
the redemption of omitted sub
sequent taxes upon delinquent
certified lands at the mere 'discre-
ton of the County Delinquent
Tax Adjustment Boards created
by the act, that such statute is
viclative of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the Constitution of
the United States in that it sets
up a system for the administra-
ton of the tax redemption laws
of this state, that is unequal in
the scope of its application to
taxpayers generally, and that such
feature of the statute is further
unconstitutional as an unlawful
delegation Of legislative power to
the County Delinquent Tax Adj
justment Board, inasmuch as no
definite and certain standards for
the administration of the Act in
it's tax remission feature is there
in stated. laid down or set forth.
Subsequent Taxes
"'Omitted subsequent taxes
are current taxes and as such
they may not be constitutionally
compromised. adjusted or remit
ted on any terms not likewise
made available to all taxpayers
alike-that is to say, those who
have already paid their current
taxes due on lands not tax delin-
quent. nor certified to the state,
nor held by the state subject to
redemption at the option of the
owner under circumstances per-
hitting the owner and no one else
to demand redemption as mat
ter of right on condition that he
pay therefor such omitted SUBJ
sequent taxes as other taxpayers
have already been compelled to
pay for the same tax period, or
which they remain liable to be-
ing compelled to- pay because no
compromise or adjustment priv
ileges are open to them under the
terms of the prevailing statute.
eff the foregoing is not so,
then the constitutional require
ment of the equal protection of
the tax laws is a meaningless jar
gon of words because under the
states tax laws as herein pro-
posed to be administered, a de-
linquent taxpayer can compromise
a current unpaid tax merely be-
cause it is called in legal name
an omitted subsequent tax where
as one who is not so delinquent
or who has paid the tax, is denied
an equiNd'ehL privilege.
Further Views
at is my further view, the
constitutional requirement of
equal protection of the tax laws,
prohibits the legislature from Sc
lecting and classifying delinquent
taxpayers as the beneflciaries of
special tax concessions with ref
erence to unpaid current taxes. I'M
less the same benefits are made
equivalently available in some
form or other to non-delinquent
taxpayers. | am therefore of the
opinion that any statute framed
or administered in violation of the
aforementioned sound principle
of constitutional justice. trans
cends the limits of both state and
federal provisions of organic law
on the subject of equal protection
of the law and must be so de- !
clared in the courts when proper !
" challenged by an effected
litigant."