The people's voice. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1939-1969, 1961-10-06

by the co-operatives is wrong.
interviewer and inseparable in the
arguments, however, is the issue OF
the principle involved in the tax
status of co-operatives.
The Equalization Board attorney,
Sidney Smith, contends the manner
in which the co-operatives are seek
ing redress is wrong. He said they
should have paid the tax under pro-
test and then gone to court to re-
cover.
The co-operatives in their answer
ing brief uphold their legal steps to
prohibit the board from enforcing its
regulation on the grounds that the
tax is illegal and not authorized by
law, and the property is exempt from
taxation, therefore the relief sought
and the exigencies of the taxpayers
situation is what is important. They
contend the board has pursued a
wrong method of taxation +.
adopted a fundamentally wrong
principle of assessment =. so gross
as to be inconsistent with any exer-
else of honest Judgment J. and
they have failed to follow the law.
The board members voting to
adopt the contested regulations,
the brief states, "were almost to- \
tally lacking in experience having Z
been appointed only two months
earlier; they chose to ignore the /
laws of Montana, the decisions of
this (Supreme) court, the official
opinion of the Attorney General
and the advice of career staff per-
sonnet with more years in service
that it had weeks.
The step taken by co-operatives
to prohibit the board from enforcing
its regulation, Massman contends, is |
allowed where it is necessary to pre-
vent a multiplicity of judicial pro-
seedlings" If the tax were paid
and then contested, the number of /
cases to recover would be impossible.
HIGH COURTS ACTION
PREMATURE" II
The co-operatives also believe the
action taken by the Supreme Court
prohibiting the district court from
tllC case 10 pItlldtQIG Dt- III
cause eff the district court had juris-
diction over the action in any respect
it surely acted within that jurisdic-
ton in temporarily staying enforce
ment" of the questioned regulation
until it could hear proof presented
both in support of the petition and in
support of the action of the State
Board of Equalization.
The board acted knowingly and II
deliberately to compel the co-opera-
i've taxpayers "to pay tax on monies
which they are required by con-
,ractual obligation to pay to their
and not the property or
income of said taxpayers, in impair
nent of their contracts is in violation
If state and federal constitutional
the brief says.
The question of venue whether H
he case should have been filed in
he Lewis & Clark or 9th Judicial
)istrict) should have been raised be-
ore the Bottomly court at the time
# the original scheduled hearing in
tead of being attached as so much II
CAtcSS OdSSdBc W tllc supreme L
,ourt petition, Massman states.
The matters presented on the
s'high policy" of whether the regu-
lation is contrary to law do not
belong in the pending hearing, but
because they were raised in a
friend of the court brief filed
by A. w. Scribner, the co-opera-
tives' attorney did not want those
arguments ito go unchallenged'.
The intent of the legislation, Serb
er said, was to tax patronage divi-
ends, therefore he believes the Board
Equalization is within the law by
5 regulation.
GARD IGNORED ANOTHER
,61 STATUTE
On this issue Massman says the
'ard and Scribner have ignored an
her bill .(HB 348) passed by the
me legislature which says state
xes shall be collected according to