Court Opinion

ID: 9653530
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:48:21.621735+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:59.875448
License: Public Domain

J. Seaborn Holt, J., dissenting. I think the decree should be reversed. As I construe the majority view, it, in effect, holds that the State of Arkansas, through its Revenue Commissioner, has waived any right it may have to collect the tax in question. This the Revenue Commissioner could not do. As I read the record, substantial evidence had been presented by the appellant, Revenue Commissioner, at the time he rested his case, to support his contention that the tax was due, demanded, and unpaid, and therefore under our rule in Werbe v. Holt, 217 Ark. 198, 229 S. W. 2d 225, the trial court erred in sustaining appellee’s motion to dismiss appellant’s complaint. The law also appears to be well settled in many decisions of this court that in circumstances such as are presented here, the Revenue Commissioner, representing a State Agency, could not waive any rights that the State may have to enforce payment of this tax. The State is not and could not be estopped by his action. We said in Southwestern Distilled Products Company, Inc. v. State, ex rel., Humphrey, State Auditor, 199 Ark. 761, 135 S. W. 2d 166: “The then revenue collector had no authority to supersede, modify or change the law by regulation or by a promise to exempt appellant from the payment of the tax. It was his duty to levy and collect the tax. The State of Arkansas is not estopped by the unauthorized act of the revenue office to levy and collect the tax. . . . ‘ The doctrine of estoppel is not applicable to and cannot be applied against the State.’ ... ‘A public officer cannot ratify expressly his own unauthorized act, and surely cannot do so by mere implication. . . . Estoppels do not generally bind a State; that is, estoppel by conduct of its own officers. Clearly, the State cannot be estopped by unauthorized acts of its officers.’ ” This holding was reaffirmed in Superior Bath House Company v. McCarroll, 200 Ark. 233, 139 S. W. 2d 378; Hollis & Company v. McCarroll, Commissioner, 200 Ark. 523, 140 S. W. 2d 420, and Terminal Oil Company v. McCarroll, Commissioner of Revenues, 201 Ark. 830, 147 S. W. 2d 352. It seems to me that if the majority opinion stands, it may open the door to possible tax evasions. Justice Ward concurs in this dissent.