Opinion ID: 2355319
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Amendment 1 is Prospective in Application

Text: The Colorado General Assembly has plenary discretionary authority to levy, assess, and collect taxes. Colo. Const. art. Ill; Colo. Const. art. V, § 31; Colo. Const. art. X, § 2; Gates Rubber Co. v. S. Suburban Metro. Recreation & Park Dist., 183 Colo. 222, 227, 516 P.2d 436, 438 (1973) ([T]axation is indisputably a legislative prerogative.); Stanley v. Little Pittsburg Mining Co., 6 Colo. 415, 416 (1882) (The authority of the legislature, under the constitution, to impose a tax upon the annual net proceeds of mines and mining claims bearing precious metals, and to make provision for the assessment and collection thereof, is not questioned.). The Department is the agency generally assigned the duty of administering and enforcing tax laws that have statewide effect. Under section 39-21-112, the Department has a ministerial, non-discretionary duty to administer taxing statutes in accordance with the directives of the General Assembly. See Am. Bonding Co. of Balt. v. People, 53 Colo. 512, 526, 127 P. 941, 946-47 (1912) (ministerial officers have no right to refuse to perform ministerial duties prescribed by law because of any apprehension on their part that . . . the statute prescribing such duties may be unconstitutional). To that end, the Department must implement tax statutes and promulgate regulations that do not conflict with statutory directives. See §§ 39-21-112(1), 39-29-106; Miller Int'l, Inc. v. State Dep't of Revenue, 646 P.2d 341, 344 (Colo. 1982) ([A] regulation must further the will of the legislature and may not modify or contravene an existing statute. Thus, any regulation which is inconsistent with or contrary to a statute is void and of no effect. (citations omitted)). Because the Department implements regulations to carry out the will and policy of the legislature expressed through tax statutes, it has no power to impose a new tax or to set tax policy. See Cohen v. State Dep't of Revenue, 197 Colo. 385, 390, 593 P.2d 957, 961 (1979); Weed v. Occhiato, 175 Colo. 509, 511, 488 P.2d 877, 879 (1971) (If a change in the law is desired, it must be accomplished by the General Assembly, for neither the Director of Revenue nor this Court is empowered with taxing authority.). Exercise of the General Assembly's discretionary taxing power is subject to limits prescribed by the Colorado Constitution. Parsons v. People, 32 Colo. 221, 235, 76 P. 666, 670 (1904) ([E]xcept as inhibited by the Constitution, the legislative department of government has the unlimited power of taxation, not only as to the subjects of taxation, but also as to the rate.). Section 4(a) of Amendment 1 is one such limit. Section 4(a) requires a governmental entity to have voter approval in advance for any new tax, tax rate increase, . . . or a tax policy change directly causing a net tax revenue gain. Colo. Const. art. X, § 20(4)(a). This provision provides for the electorate's check upon adoption of new tax legislation before it can go into effect. Bickel, 885 P.2d at 226 (Amendment 1's requirement of electoral approval is not a grant of new powers or rights to the people, but is more properly viewed as a limitation on the power of the people's elected representatives.). Amendment 1 is contained within the constitutional provisions of article X relating to the General Assembly's taxing powers. Its purpose is to protect citizens from unwarranted tax increases and to allow citizens to approve or disapprove the imposition of new tax burdens. In re Submission of Interrogatories on Senate Bill 93-74, 852 P.2d 1, 4 (Colo.1993). Amendment 1 did not repeal pre-existing tax statutes that include a tax rate provision for adjusting the amount of tax due. Instead, anticipating that pre-existing tax statutes might operate to bring in increasing amounts of revenue, Amendment 1 included article X, section 20(7), which imposes spending limits that require a refund of taxes collected unless retention of the excess revenue is voter-approved. F.T. Havens v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 924 P.2d 517, 522 (Colo.1996). Accordingly, the voter-approval requirements of section 4(a) apply only to new taxes, tax rate increases, and tax policy changes adopted by legislative bodies after November 4, 1992. See Bolt, 898 P.2d at 533-34 (examining the specific language of Amendment 1 and holding that the electorate intended a prospective application beginning November 4, 1992). Thus, Amendment 1 did not change the types or kinds of taxing statutes allowable under our constitution. [5] Rather, it altered who ultimately must approve imposition of new taxes, tax rate increases, and tax policy changes by requiring voter approval before they can go into effect, leaving in place previously enacted legislative measures unless superseded by Amendment 1's provisions. See Bickel, 885 P.2d at 226; In re Interrogatories on Senate Bill 93-74, 852 P.2d at 4. In Bolt, a school district exercised its authority to increase two mill levy rates and add a third to the total mill levied on property in the district. 898 P.2d at 527-30. The increase was approved by the District before Amendment 1, but the board of county commissioners issued its order approving the increase in 1993, after passage of Amendment 1. Id. Although the increase became effective after the passage of Amendment 1 and was not voted on by the district's electors, we held that implementing the increase did not violate Amendment 1. Id. at 537 (We find that the [tax] is not subject to the voter-approval provision of [section 4(a)] because the [tax] was effectively imposed prior to the effective date of that provision.). Further, we held that the commissioners' post-Amendment 1 order to implement the mill levy increase was a purely ministerial act because the board of commissioners had no authority to modify the school district's mill levy or to refuse to impose it. Id. at 538. Our holding in Bolt is consistent with previous enunciations of Amendment 1's language, intent, and purpose. In Campbell v. Orchard Mesa Irrigation District, we held that Amendment 1's objective is to prevent governmental entities from enacting taxing and spending increases above Amendment 1's limits without voter approval. 972 P.2d 1037, 1039 (Colo.1998) (emphasis added). Similarly, we have held that Amendment 1's prospective effect is intended to limit the discretion of government officials to take certain taxing, revenue and spending actions in the absence of voter approval. Havens, 924 P.2d at 522 (emphasis omitted). Thus, we construe section (4)(a) of Amendment 1 as vesting with the voters the authority to approve or disapprove actions of legislative bodies that enact new taxes, tax rate increases or tax policy changes directly causing a net tax revenue gain. In re Interrogatories on Senate Bill 93-74, 852 P.2d at 4. The ministerial, non-discretionary implementation of a tax law passed in the exercise of legislative authority prior to November 4, 1992 does not require voter approval, even if such implementation occurs after Amendment 1's effective date of November 4, 1992. Bolt, 898 P.2d at 533-34.