Opinion ID: 1144890
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Territorial Uniformity after 1917

Text: The requirement of territorial uniformity was altered when the Oregon Constitution was amended in 1917 to provide for classification in taxation. Dissatisfaction with the uniform and equal provisions of the Oregon Constitution had previously led to the appointment in 1905 of a commission for the purposes of examining and reporting upon matters of state assessment and taxation of property. The following portions of the commission's report are enlightening: The constitutional provisions of this State have been found in the past to be unnecessarily rigid. Apparently by tacit consent they have been waived in certain instances. For instance, for many years exemptions have been allowed, not permitted by the constitution, of one class of property or another,   . Of recent years there has been a growing tendency in this State, in common with many other States of the Union, to divorce one class of property from another for the purpose of raising revenue for state purposes as distinguished from local.    However, this principle has been extended almost as far as now seems possible, inasmuch as under our present constitutional provisions such taxes, ordinarily designated as specific taxes, must be entirely supplemental to the general property tax contemplated by the constitution. Unless our constitutional provisions be made more elastic it is difficult to see how this principle can be further extended.    Your Commission has drafted the following amendments to the constitutional provisions quoted, which it believes are sufficiently elastic to permit the selection of the classes of taxable property by the legislature, the assignment of one class of property for either the application of the property tax or the specific tax beyond the privilege tax, and yet will maintain the present requirements of uniformity and equality within each class itself.    Report of Tax Commission 8-9 (1906). (Emphasis supplied.) The Commission then recommended that article I, section 32, be amended to read: `   [A]ll taxation shall be equal and uniform upon the same class of subjects within the territorial limits of the authority levying the taxes.' Id. (Emphasis in original.) And the Commission recommended that article IX, section 1, be amended to read: `   The legislative assembly shall provide by law for uniform and equal rate of assessment and taxation upon the several classes of subjects of taxation within the territorial limits of the authority levying the taxes;   .' Id. (Emphasis in original.) These recommendations appear to have been the first proposals in Oregon for amending article I, section 32, by using the phrase upon the same class of subjects within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax. Although different language was used in the amendments submitted to the Oregon voters in 1910, [17] in 1912, [18] and in 1914, [19] the purpose of the amendments never changed. They were intended to permit the reasonable classification of subjects of taxation, the exemption of certain property from taxation, and the imposition of different rates of taxation upon different classes of property. See, e.g., Standard Lumber Co. v. Pierce et al, supra, 112 Or. at 335, 228 P. 812; Reed, For Equal Distribution of Tax Burden, Oregon Voter 10-13 (May 19, 1917); Voters' Pamphlet, Special Election, June 4, 1917, pp. 14-15; Message of Oswald West, Governor of Oregon, p. 41 (1915); Voters' Pamphlet, General Election, November 5, 1912, pp. 22-30; Message of Oswald West, Governor of Oregon, pp. 4-5 (1911); Report of Board of Tax Commissioners 19-21, 27 (1911); Voters' Pamphlet, General Election, November 8, 1910, pp. 24-25; Report of Tax Commission 5-10 (1906). Although the primary purpose of the 1917 amendments was to permit classification, the use of the phrase within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax raised the principle of territorial uniformity to that of an express constitutional requirement. But the drafters intended a requirement of territorial uniformity within each class of subjects taxed. Thus Standard Lumber Co. v. Pierce et al., supra , in discussing the 1917 amendments to article I, section 32, and article IX, section 1, stated that  among the members or objects included in a class selected by the [l]egislature, inherent uniformity as well as territorial uniformity is required.  112 Or. at 335-36, 228 P. at 819. (Emphasis supplied.) Indeed, the intentions of the drafters of the amendments can be traced back to the 1905 commission which, as quoted above, sought to draft constitutional provisions    sufficiently elastic to permit the selection of the classes of taxable property   , and yet    maintain the present requirements of uniformity and equality within each class itself.  Report of Tax Commission 9 (1906) (emphasis supplied). Thus, once a taxing authority selects a class for taxation, the tax must apply uniformly among all objects in the class that are within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax. [20]