Opinion ID: 1309027
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: uniform, equal, fair, and just taxation under the wyoming constitution

Text: With the system of ad valorem taxes such as is constitutionally provided in Wyoming, where a tier system or some other classification of property types is not authorized, the taxation process embodies two defined steps, (a) determination of a uniform and just valuation as the assessment process, and (b) application of a legislatively authorized tax by the appropriate governmental divisions to determine the tax due by mathematical computation. 1 Bonbright, Valuation of Property, Ch. XVII, The General Property Tax, p. 451, and Constitutional Mandate of Uniformity, p. 499. See also 8 Rohan, Real Estate Tax Appeals § 3.95, p. 3-52, Advantages and disadvantages of the separate standards of assessment. The system in Wyoming has additionally developed the statutorily and constitutionally undefined and unprovided process or sequence which is application of some assessment ratio percentage to reduce the full-value assessment to the taxation assessment. [17] See Lunkenheimer Co. v. Board of Revision of Hamilton County, 41 Ohio App.2d 27, 322 N.E.2d 133 (1974); Killen v. Logan County Commissioners, W. Va., 295 S.E.2d 689 (1982); Annot., 42 A.L.R.4th 676, Requirement of Full-Value Real Property Taxation Assessments. This court is now faced with determining whether the mandatory criteria of the Constitution of uniform assessment to secure a just valuation and taxation as equal and uniform are met by the factoring sequence with derived differential between two classes of property of 42.75%. Bemis Bros. Bag Co. v. Claremont, 98 N.H. 446, 102 A.2d 512 (1953). The answer is no. This court cannot countenance constitutionally denied, de facto classification of property in this fashion for taxation purposes. See Arkansas Public Service Commission v. Pulaski County Board of Equalization, 266 Ark. 64, 582 S.W.2d 942 (1979); Boyne v. State ex rel. Dickerson, 80 Nev. 160, 390 P.2d 225 (1964); Eminence Distillery Co. v. Henry County Board of Supervisors, 178 Ky. 811, 200 S.W. 347, 352 (1918): It will be observed that in the scheme of taxation provided for by our Constitution and by the statutes made for the purpose of carrying its provisions into effect the chief fundamental essential of all the laws, which we have upon the subject of taxation is that the burden of taxation shall be borne by all alike, or, in other words, equality in the imposition of such burdens shall exist. Soo Line R. Co. v. State, N.D., 286 N.W.2d 459 (1979); Simmons v. Ericson, 54 S.D. 429, 223 N.W. 342 (1929). In the early Kansas case of Wheeler v. Weightman, 96 Kan. 50, 149 P. 977, 978 (1915), a succinct and persuasive analysis was afforded where differentiated classes for general property taxation were statutorily created:    The Constitutional command is that the Legislature shall provide for a uniform and equal rate of assessment and taxation. Assessment is a prerequisite to the application of any rate of taxation, and assessment includes listing and valuation. This is fundamental, and cannot be evaded by any shift or device whatever. See District of Columbia v. Green, D.C. App., 310 A.2d 848 (1973); Beverly Bank v. Board of Revenue of Will County, 117 Ill. App.3d 656, 453 N.E.2d 96 (1983), cert. denied 466 U.S. 951, 104 S.Ct. 2153, 80 L.Ed.2d 539 (1984); State Tax Commission v. Gales, 222 Md. 543, 161 A.2d 676 (1960); Foss v. City of Rochester, 65 N.Y.2d 247, 491 N.Y.S.2d 128, 480 N.E.2d 717 (1985); State ex rel. Park Investment Co. v. Board of Tax Appeals, 32 Ohio St.2d 28, 289 N.E.2d 579 (1972); Fray v. Culpeper County, 212 Va. 148, 183 S.E.2d 175 (1971). Persuasive in this conclusion is not only the clear criteria of the Constitution [18] and the body of similar precedent of other jurisdictions, but also the Fourteenth Amendment consideration of the United States Supreme Court in significant conclusion that an equal-protection defect results where clearly unequal application of the taxation power is applied under state authority which does not provide for the classification of taxpayers within constitutional criteria. [19] Artificial distractions are created which are not uniform nor result in a just valuation. We would follow the well-justified rule of constitutional interpretation that where the meaning is clear from the words used we need not search for extraneous interpretive alternatives. State ex rel. Martin v. Melott, 320 N.C. 518, 359 S.E.2d 783 (1987). As a result, the differentiated assessment ratio or debasement factor contravenes the Wyoming Constitution. State Board of Tax Commissioners v. Polygram Records, Inc., Ind. App., 487 N.E.2d 444 (1985); State Board of Tax Commissioners v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc., Ind. App., 477 N.E.2d 939 (1985). In ad valorem taxation, a rational basis for a disputed classification must be shown with equal treatment of similarly definable taxpayers. Penn Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Department of Licensing and Regulation, 162 Mich. App. 123, 412 N.W.2d 668 (1987). The attendant declaration of the ratio and basis in this case runs afoul of the constitutional equal-and-uniform mandates where all taxpayers are indigenous to the one class by constitution. This court will not indulge in a disputation between Fourteenth Amendment equal-protection and state Constitution just-valuation criteria of equal and uniform. Cf. Tulsa County Board of Equalization v. Independent School District No. 1, Okla., 743 P.2d 1076 (1987); 1 Cooley, The Law of Taxation, Ch. 6, Equality and Uniformity of Taxation § 298, p. 622:    [A] classification whereby one class of property is required to be valued at a higher per cent of its value than another class is not a reasonable or permissible classification, at least unless the constitution merely requires uniformity on `the same class of subjects.' In no event may the classification be purely arbitrary. The Nevada Supreme Court synthesized application of similar constitutional provisions to a statutory classification on exemption approval of the legislature in Boyne v. State, supra, 390 P.2d at 228: `   [U]nder Nevada Law    no special laws can be passed for the assessment and collection of taxes for state, county and township purposes   ;    all laws shall be general and of uniform operation throughout the State   ;    the Legislature shall provide by law for a uniform and equal rate of assessment and taxation, and shall prescribe such regulations as shall secure a just valuation for taxation of all property   ;    all ad valorem taxes should be of a uniform rate or percentage   . Therefore, in deciding the constitutionality   , the ancient principles of uniformity, equality, justness and fairness permeate the law, principles which cannot now be ignored.' See also Simmons v. Ericson, supra; Corporation of Sevierville v. King, 182 Tenn. 143, 184 S.W.2d 381 (1939). Cf. Arkansas, where constitutional authority for the legislation existed to set the tax appraisal ratio as still requiring initial action on full market value and a uniform ratio of that initially determined value. Arkansas Public Service Commission v. Pulaski County Board of Equalization, supra. [20]