Court Opinion

ID: 9540276
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:14:13.191537+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:59:48.542541
License: Public Domain

Atkinson, Presiding Justice,
dissenting. The facts in this case show that some of the merchants returned for ad valorem taxation “notes and accounts” and “stocks of merchandise.” Their returns were checked by the tax assessors, filed with the tax collector, and placed upon the tax digest. Subsequently the tax assessors sought to revise and increase the values placed upon these items, and to assess “notes and accounts” and “stocks of merchandise” some of which had not been returned at all.
Since the act of 1943 (Ga. L. 1943, p. 243), which amended Code Chapter 92-67, where the tax authorities have assessed property for the year involved, and no arbitration is demanded by the taxpayer, the value thus set by the authorities upon the same property is fixed for that year. Of course, where the taxpayer fails to return an item of taxable property, he becomes a tax defaulter as to that item.
Where a “stock of goods, merchandise, and wares” or “notes and accounts” are returned and assessed by the tax authorities, there can be no additional assessment on these items.
*834No. 17033.
April 10, 1950.
Rehearing denied May 11, 1950.
Steve Schalasny, A. M. Zellner, and Hugh D. Sosebee, for plaintiffs.
Spalding, Sibley, Troutman & Kelley, for persons at interest.
Williams & Freeman and W. B. Mitchell, for defendants.
The instant case, in so far as it is predicated on previous decisions in reference-to “notes and accounts,” is not controlled by the decision in Douglas v. McCurdy, 154 Ga. 814 (12), or in Hardin v. Reynolds, 189 Ga. 534 (3) as ruled in the majority opinion. Both of those cases were decided under the provisions of § 1087 of the Code of 1910, which required, in returning notes and accounts, that both the “gross value” and the “market value” thereof be returned. But when this section was codified in the Code of 1933, § 92-6215, it was changed so as to require only that the return show the “value” thereof. Under the Code of 1910, it was mandatory that both the gross value and the market value be returned; and where less than the gross value was returned, it was held to be an omission to return the difference for taxation. But, under the Code of 1933, there is no requirement that the gross value be returned, but only the value of all the notes and accounts.
Nor should what was said in the above cases as to “money” control the instant case. Money is an item with a definite and certain value; and where a person returns for taxation an amount of money less than he has, he is a defaulter as to the difference, because there can be no discretion exercised as to its value. Where he fails to return the full amount of money, he would be a defaulter as to the balance.
Under the present law, stocks of merchandise should be treated as a single item or unit for taxation; and where a return thereof is made, the authorities may, as provided by law, question the accuracy of the value placed thereon by the taxpayer and make their own assessment; but it can not be said that the taxpayer has failed to make a return of that particular item of his property, or that, because his value placed thereon was too small, he was a defaulter as to the difference.
It seems to the writer that properties subject to taxation, such as “notes and accounts,” “stock of goods,” “farm implements,” and “household and kitchen furniture,” are single composite items or units to be returned for taxation. And when returned, the right of the tax assessors to question the value of such items is limited to June 1 of each year as provided in Code (Ann. Supp.) § 92-6917. When so returned the taxpayer is not afterwards subject to proceedings against him as a tax defaulter under Code § 92-6601 et seq.
Unless the foregoing is a proper construction of the law as to the requirements of a taxpayer in making his ad valorem tax return, then each taxpayer would be required to return an itemized statement of every article he owned which was subject to taxation, in order to determine and be protected as to the amount of tax due that year, and also to prevent his ad valorem tax liability being held in abeyance for a period of seven years.