Opinion ID: 225913
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Statutory Authority.

Text: 25 The important question still remains whether the local statutes, 1 which are in general terms, authorize an apportioned tax. 26 There was no special statute in Oklahoma 2 authorizing the tax sustained as constitutional in Johnson Oil Refining Co. v. Oklahoma, supra. The Oklahoma authorities were permitted to devise a fair method consistent with the like jurisdiction of other States. The Supreme Court, without a State statute to guide it, said, the tax may be fixed by an appraisement and valuation of the average amount of the property thus habitually used and employed. 290 U.S. at page 162, 54 S.Ct. at page 154, 78 L.Ed. 238, quoting from American Refrigerator Transit Co. v. Hall, supra, 174 U.S. at page 82, 19 S.Ct. at page 604, 43 L.Ed. 899. On the remand the Supreme Court of Oklahoma said that beyond question the cars are taxable under the general statute. In re Johnson's Oil Refining Co.'s Property, 1934, 167 Okl. 452, 30 P.2d 692. 27 See, also, Shaffer Oil & Refining Co. v. County Treasurer, 1935, 175 Okl. 6, 52 P.2d 76, 77, 80, 81, where the court referred to the situation as follows: 28    This conclusion was announced notwithstanding the fact that, as we had previously pointed out, there is no specific statute authorizing the tax to be computed on the basis of the `average number' of cars within a taxing jurisdiction.    29 In Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. Pennsylvania, supra, there was no specific statute. In later years, in Union Tank Line Co. v. Wright, 1918, 249 U.S. 275, 284, 39 S.Ct. 276, 279, 63 L.Ed. 602, the Supreme Court noted this in a reference to the Pullman case as follows: 30    Pennsylvania demanded taxes of the Pullman Company, an Illinois corporation, for the years 1870 to 1880 upon such portion of its capital stock as total miles of railroad in Pennsylvania over which its cars moved bore to like total in all states. No statute prescribed the method of valuation; it had been adopted by executive officers.    3 31 Similarly, there was no apportionment statute in Kentucky when Reeves, Commissioner v. Island Creek Fuel & Transportation Co., supra, was decided. The applicable law resided in part in the following sections of the Kentucky constitution: 32 All property, not exempt from taxation by this Constitution, shall be assessed for taxation at its fair cash value   . Section 172. 33