Opinion ID: 1630142
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Double Taxation

Text: The Scotts further argue that Ordinances No. 1178, No. 1188, No. 1293, and No. 1330 effectively imposed double taxation because they required individuals engaged in leasing as well as leasing agents to pay a business license tax. (Scotts' brief, at 27.) The Scotts claim that the ordinances mentioned above do not exempt amounts paid by property owners in commissions to leasing agents from the calculation of gross annual receipts. This results in the property owners and the leasing agents paying a business license tax on the same revenue. (Scotts' brief, at 27.) This Court has stated that, [a]lthough it is the general rule in this state that double taxation will be avoided, if possible, such taxation is permissible and not unconstitutional unless such double taxation is confiscatory, discriminatory, or results in an unreasonable pyramiding of taxes. Starlite Lanes, Inc. v. Alabama, 283 Ala. 48, 51, 214 So.2d 324, 326 (1968)(citing Ray E. Loper Lumber Co. v. State, 269 Ala. 425, 113 So.2d 686 (1959); Al Means, Inc. v. City of Montgomery, 268 Ala. 31, 104 So.2d 816 (1958); Woco Pep Co. of Montgomery v. City of Montgomery, 219 Ala. 73, 121 So. 64 (1929); Brown Plumbing & Heating Co. v. McDowell, 240 Ala. 485, 200 So. 104 (1941)). The ordinances do not impose a tax on the mere ownership of real property. Instead, as pertains to the Scotts, they levy a tax for the privilege of engaging in the leasing of property located in the City, whether it be by reason of business, occupation, profession, trade, or vocation. Moreover, as this Court stated in Starlite: Although there is double taxation in the sense that two taxes have been paid on the same item [gross receipts], the two taxes do not fall upon the same person. We do not feel that this is objectionable in the present case. 283 Ala at 52, 214 So.2d at 327. Although certain of the ordinances do require a tax on the gross receipts earned by the Scotts and on the gross commissions of their agents, which under the circumstances in this case, are based on a percentage of the Scotts' gross receipts, this is not the equivalent of a double tax on the gross receipts received by the Scotts. The Scotts hired agents to manage their properties and to conduct some of their affairs, and in so doing, their agents became subject to the ordinances. Moreover, as in Starlite, the tax is borne by different taxpayers. Thus, we are unable to say that the taxes imposed by the ordinances result in unreasonable taxation. Accordingly, we conclude that the Scotts' argument that the selected ordinances might impose double taxation does not provide this Court with any basis on which to invalidate the ordinances. The Scotts also argue that the penalties imposed by the ordinances for failure to pay the license tax are unreasonable and excessive, and that because Ordinance No. 1178 was in effect on January 1, 1995, they are exempt from the taxes imposed by that ordinance for that year, because, they say, they possessed no office or other place of business in the City, as required by the Ordinance. However, the Scotts failed to raise these issues before they filed their postjudgment motion objecting to the entry of the judgment. In City of Tallassee v. Harris, 431 So.2d 1177 (Ala.1983), this Court noted that postjudgment motions are not the proper vehicle for raising new issues. In Harris, this Court stated, in pertinent part: The city further contends that the trial court erred in denying its motion for judgment N.O.V. or in the alternative for a new trial on this issue. The city did not raise the issue of contributory negligence in its motion for directed verdict; therefore, it cannot be repostured in a post-trial motion for judgment N.O.V. or in the alternative a new trial. Rule 50(b), [Ala. R. Civ. P.]; Housing Authority [of Prichard] v. Malloy, 341 So.2d 708, 709-710 (Ala.1977). Consequently, the trial court cannot be placed in error for denying the city's motion for directed verdict on the basis of issues not presented in its motion. 431 So.2d at 1182. See also Hall v. Hall, 421 So.2d 1270 (Ala.Civ.App.1982)(party, who has knowledge of facts, cannot normally withhold from the court his objections based on such information and thereby gamble upon the final result of the litigation and, upon an adverse judgment, successfully raise such an issue for the first time through a postjudgment motion); Burton v. Burton, 379 So.2d 617 (Ala.Civ.App.1980)(party may not even raise the issue of the constitutionality of statute for the first time in a motion for a new trial or on appeal). Accordingly, we do not address this issue further. For the reasons we have previously discussed, the judgment of the trial court is due to be affirmed. AFFIRMED. SEE, BROWN, and STUART, JJ., concur. MOORE, C.J., concurs in the result.