Court Opinion

ID: 9581284
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:13:16.881962+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:49.545280
License: Public Domain

Fatzer, C. J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part: I concur in the court’s reversal of this case affording the taxpayer relief, but I would direct that his recovery for taxes paid under protest be computed for a greater amount than ordered by the majority opinion.
Since 1963, the rule announced in Addington v. Board of County Commissioners, 191 Kan. 528, 382 P. 2d 315, has been the law of this state, which has been consistently followed and reapplied, and I see no sound or compelling reason why it should be disregarded or distinguished on the basis set forth in the court’s opinion. In Addington we cited and relied upon Sioux City Bridge v. Dakota County, 260 U. S. 441, 67 L. Ed. 340, 43 S. Ct. 190, 28 A. L. R. 979, where it was said:
“. . . This Court holds that the right of the taxpayer whose property alone is taxed at [here 43 percent] of its true value is to have his assessment reduced to the percentage of that value at which others are taxed even though this is a departure from the requirement of statute. The conclusion is based on the principle that where it is impossible to secure both the standard of the true value, and the uniformity and equality required by law, the latter requirement is to be preferred as the just and ultimate purpose of the law. . . .” (p. 446.)
Neither do I see any sound or compelling reason why Beardmore v. Ling, 203 Kan. 802, 457 P. 2d 117 (1969), should likewise be cast aside and overruled; nor do I agree that Kansas City Southern Rly. Co. v. Board of County Comm'rs, 183 Kan. 675, 331 P. 2d 899 (1958), is to be distinguished on the basis stated in the court’s opinion, or that it has no precedential value in the instant case — impliedly or otherwise.
The court, by directing an assessment of plaintiff’s property at the statutory rate (30 percent of fail' market value), has entered *699the forbidden area of assessing property instead of leaving that task to the proper taxing authorities. The fact there may have been other taxpayers in Shawnee County whose property was assessed at a higher rate than the prevailing median rate and who did not pay their taxes under protest, affords no reason for denying the plaintiff his right to have his assessment reduced to the same percentage of fair market value as those whose property was assessed at the median ratio of 15 percent of fair market value. He is entitled to have his tax recovery computed accordingly.