Opinion ID: 1932230
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Did The Chancery Court Err In Holding House Bill 388 To Be A General Law Instead Of Invalid Local and Private Legislation?

Text: Taxpayers argue that House Bill No. 388 is constitutionally local and private legislation and invalid twice over. Substantively, Taxpayers point to Section 90(h) of the Mississippi Constitution which prohibits the passage of local, private or special legislation in the exemption of property from taxation, or from levy or sale. This argument is made in light of the fact that Section 112, as amended by H.C.R. 41, facially, provides for the exemption of property from taxation only by general laws. Procedurally, Taxpayers note Section 89 which requires that all local and private bills be considered by and reported out of the local and private committees of each house. The general principle operative here is Miss. Const. Art. 4, ง 87 (1890): No special or local law shall be enacted for the benefit of individuals or corporations, in cases which are or can be provided for by general law... . This principle remains intact even with the amendments to Section 112 of the Constitution approved above. Our question, thus, is whether H.B. 388 is a special or local law. A law is general when it operates uniformly on all members of a class of persons, places, or things requiring legislation peculiar to the case dealt with. City of Jackson v. Deposit Guaranty Bank & Trust Co., 160 Miss. 752, 766, 133 So. 195, 197 (1931); State ex rel. Knox v. Speakes, 144 Miss. 125, 155-56, 109 So. 129, 132 (1926). Additionally, where the classification that has been drawn by the legislature is one that exempts property from taxation, the only limit upon legislative power is that, the exemption shall not be arbitrary; that is to say that it must have some just and rational relation to the promotion of the public welfare. Id. at 767, 133 So. at 198. In cases dealing with classifications drawn by the legislature in statutes and laws, we have said: The question of classification is one primarily for the legislature, and in the exercise of this power the legislature possesses a wide discretion. We have also held in view of the presumptions in favor of a legislative judgment as to classification, the legislative judgment will be upheld if any state of facts can reasonably be conceived to sustain it, and can be overthrown by the courts only when it is clearly erroneous. [Emphasis added] Jackson Redevelopment Authority v. King, Inc., 364 So.2d 1104, 1107-08 (Miss. 1978); Board of Education v. State Educational Finance Commission, 243 Miss. 782, 814, 138 So.2d 912, 926 (1962). See also Comment, General Special, Local and Private Legislation: A Mississippi Overview, 56 Miss.L.J. 327, 334-46 (1986). Taxpayers argue that there is no rational distinction between nuclear power plants and other power plants for taxing purposes. But, nowhere is the power of classification accorded more latitude than in the field of taxation, and the state may tax certain kinds of property, yet exempt others. Sharpe v. Standard Oil Co., 322 So.2d 457, 461 (Miss. 1975). In Sharpe, this Court observed the great latitude in tax classification cases by noting that: In Broad River Power Co. v. Query, 288 U.S. 178, 53 S.Ct. 326, 77 L.Ed. 685 (1933), a suit was filed contesting the validity of a South Carolina law that taxed the production of hydroelectric power but not the production of electricity by oil or internal combustion engines... . The Court held that the existence of comparatively few internal combustion electric plants was sufficient reason for creating the tax classification. 288 U.S. at 179-80, 53 S.Ct. at 327, 77 L.Ed. at 686. Id. As such, a close comparison can be drawn to the distinction made by the legislature between nuclear and non-nuclear power plants in House Bill No. 388 for the purpose of exclusion from taxation. Along similar lines, Taxpayers assert that there is no rational distinction between the in-lieu tax provided for by House Bill No. 388 and those provided for by House Bill No. 387. House Bill No. 387 specifically provided for a different manner of in-lieu taxes to be paid on the Yellow Creek Nuclear Plant, which is owned and operated by the Tennessee Valley Authority in Tishomingo County, Mississippi, than those to be paid by privately owned nuclear generating plants. This Court will uphold legislative judgment in deriving a classification if any state of facts can reasonably be conceived to sustain it. Jackson Redevelopment Authority, supra . As the difference between taxing privately owned property and that owned by the federal government is readily apparent, the classification is valid. Finally, Taxpayers argue that House Bill No. 388 is local and private legislation because under its terms, it can only apply to the Grand Gulf facility in Claiborne County. Taxpayers specifically point to the provision in Section 2 of House Bill No. 388 which provided for a decreasing payment schedule to the situs county of the nuclear plant beginning in 1987 with a fifty percent payment, gradually diminishing to thirty percent by 1991, which will be the figure paid to any situs county thereafter. In regard to this argument, this Court's long-standing rule is that: Where a law is broad enough to reach every portion of the state and to embrace within its provisions every person or thing distinguished by characteristics sufficiently marked and important to make them clearly a class by themselves, it is not a special or local, but a general law even though there may be but one member of the class or one place on which it operates. [Emphasis added] Jackson Redevelopment Authority, 364 So.2d at 1107. Vardaman v. McBee, 198 Miss. 251, 260, 21 So.2d 661, 664 (1945); see also Comment, General, Special, Local and Private Legislation: A Mississippi Overview, 56 Miss.L.J. 327, 333 (1986). The real question is whether every person that can be brought within its predicament becomes subject to its operation. Delta & Pine Land Co. v. Board of Supervisors, 228 So.2d 893 (Miss. 1969). As House Bill No. 388 will bring into its predicament any privately owned nuclear facilities built in the future, it does not comprise local and private legislation. [7] The assignment of error is denied.