Opinion ID: 1828589
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Concurrent jurisdiction of circuit court and commission of tax appeals.

Text: Defendant contends that, as a matter of subject-matter jurisdiction, the commission has exclusive jurisdiction over the review of any question of fact or law arising under the tax laws of Wisconsin. Whereas, the plaintiffs never actually challenge the jurisdiction of the commission, but argue, in effect, that the circuit court has concurrent jurisdiction under the provisions of sec. 269.56, Stats., which provides, in part: ... (1) SCOPE. Courts of record within their respective jurisdictions shall have power to declare rights, status and other legal relations whether or not further relief is or could be claimed. No action or proceeding shall be open to objection on the ground that a declaratory judgment or decree is prayed for. The declaration may be either affirmative or negative in form and effect; and such declarations shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or decree. The trial court correctly determined that Metzger v. Department of Taxation (1967), 35 Wis. 2d 119, 150 N. W. 2d 431, was distinguishable and, therefore, inapplicable to the facts of the instant case. Metzger concerned a taxpayer's action in circuit court to declare 21 gift-tax assessments null and void and to enjoin future assessments. The trial court sustained a demurrer interposed by the state. We affirmed. In Metzger, a timely application for abatement had been filed and the administrative process had begun but had not been completed. The Metzger decision was primarily based on the exhaustion-of-remedies doctrine, which will subsequently be considered in this opinion, and therefore, is not controlling in the instant case. The plaintiffs direct our attention to Berlowitz v. Roach (1947), 252 Wis. 61, 30 N. W. 2d 256; S. D. Realty Co. v. Milwaukee (1960), 9 Wis. 2d 134, 100 N. W. 2d 318; Racine v. Morgan (1968), 39 Wis. 2d 268, 159 N. W. 2d 129, as authority for their position that the circuit court has jurisdiction despite lack of review by the commission. Berlowitz, supra, was a declaratory judgment action concerned with beverage tax stamps under sec. 139.26, Stats. 1947. This case arose prior to the enactment of sec. 73.01 (5) (c), at a time when review by the commission was limited to applications for abatement or refund. [5] The exclusive remedy for one aggrieved, under sec. 139.26, was an action in law for a refund. This court held that no inference could be found in the statute that sec. 269.56 could not be used for declaratory relief and to rule otherwise would force thousands of individual lawsuits. The Berlowitz Case is distinguishable on its facts. S. D. Realty Co. v. Milwaukee, supra , was an appeal from a special-tax assessment of the city of Milwaukee. There was no provision for review to the tax appeals commission as there is in the instant case. In Racine v. Morgan, supra , the plaintiff sought declaratory relief in circuit court to determine the propriety of the commissioner of taxation's determination in applying the provisions of sec. 71.14, Stats., allocating the normal corporate income of S. C. Johnson & Son, Inc., among it and other municipalities in Wisconsin. This court, in considering a challenge to the circuit court's jurisdiction, stated on page 290: The respondent, town of Mt. Pleasant, challenges the jurisdiction of the court to consider the case. We find no merit in the respondent's argument. This is a declaratory judgment action brought against the departments of taxation and administration and against the department heads as individuals. The appellant contended that the statute governing the situation was being misconstrued and misapplied to its detriment. This is sufficient to establish jurisdiction for declaratory judgment.... We find Racine v. Morgan, supra , to be support for the determination that sec. 269.56, Stats., gives the circuit court concurrent jurisdiction with the tax appeals commission over issues arising under the tax laws. We, therefore, conclude that the circuit court and the tax appeals commission have concurrent jurisdiction to hear and determine all questions of law and fact arising under the tax laws of this state. The doctrines of exhaustion of remedies and primary jurisdiction are not concerned with the question of subject-matter jurisdiction. The doctrines assume concurrent jurisdiction between the court and the agency and are addressed to the trial court's discretion to decline jurisdiction in favor of that of the agency. Metzger, supra ; Wisconsin Collectors Asso. v. Thorp Finance Corp. (1966), 32 Wis. 2d 36, 145 N. W. 2d 33.