Court Opinion

ID: 9770947
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 16:26:01.296321+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:22.879971
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing or to Modify Opinion
HYDE, J.-
Respondents argue for a change in our ruling concerning' Sec. 7.180 of the Plan. They say that the basis of assessment in the City and the Comity is not the same and that it is necessary to make an apportionment between the City and the County of the total amount to be collected by general taxes in order to have uniformity of taxation. They say “when all taxpayers outside of *16the City are assessed at a lower percentage of fair value than those within the City, those within the City may properly demand that the tax may be made uniform, in accordance with the guarantees of the state and federal constitutions. * * * Realizing, as the Board of Freeholders did, that with different assessors, different assessment theories and practices, with also a possibility that the resulting valuations in City and County might well lack uniformity, they wisely provided the means whereby the Board of Trustees could secure uniformity of the tax. This result is accomplished by the device of hearings and findings of fact. (See. 7.190, Plan.) * * * The Board of Trustees made the determination that an ‘equalization’ of the tax will require the collection of the amounts set out in the ordinance. ’ ’
In the first place, there is nothing in the record in this case about unequal assessments. However, and more important, our Constitution provides the method for having equal assessments, by requiring in Sec. 4b, Art. X that real and tangible personal property “shall be assessed for tax purposes at its value” (except where percentage of value is authorized by law); and the General Assembly has established the State Tax Commission to enforce this provision. Sec’s. 138.380 and 138.390 RSMo., V.A.M.S. give the State Tax Commission ample authority for this purpose. Futhennore, there is no reason why the District could not be authorized to make its own assessments if that seems desirable. Sec. 11(a), Art. X prohibits the District’s assessed valuations from exceeding the assessed valuation for state and county purposes but does not say they shall not be lower. What respondents really argue for (under their view of Sec. 7.180 of the Plan) is the power to in effect exceed the valuations for state and county purposes in the County by levying their general taxes on the basis of what they believe the County assessments should be. They would do this by apportioning to the County the amount of taxes which they believe would be produced by assessments in the amounts they think should have been made by the County. We reaffirm our ruling that the Constitution prohibits this method.
The motion is overruled.
All concur.