Opinion ID: 2416855
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: duplicate taxing provisions

Text: As previously noted, taxpayers in Pulaski County successfully contested a county ordinance that was improperly enacted. Ragan v. Venhaus, supra . Waters proposes a public policy argument that the taxpayers' victory should not be taken away simply because the General Assembly enacted what is suggested to be backup or stacked tax provisions. The State's taxing authority is much broader than the limited authority delegated to the counties under Act 991 and Act 26. The improper adoption of a tax by a county does not prohibit the subsequent imposition of the same or similar tax by the proper authority. We find no violation of public policy for taxes validly imposed. For the foregoing reasons, this case is reversed and remanded with instructions to remove the injunctions previously issued. Reversed and remanded. G. ALLEN WOOTEN, Special Justice, joins in this opinion. NEWBERN, J., dissents. DUDLEY and PRICE, JJ., not participating.