Court Opinion

ID: 9607242
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:56:35.833271+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:46.512497
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE ANGSTMAN,
dissenting in part and concurring in part:
To the extent that the majority opinion herein is rested on the opinions of this court in O’Connell v. State Board of Equalization, 95 Mont. 91, 25 Pac. (2d) 114, and Mills v. State Board of Equalization, 97 Mont. 13, 33 Pac. (2d) 563, in both of which I dissented, I concur solely on the ground of stare decisis.
I disagree with the affirmance of the judgment so far as it imposes, as a penalty, the doubling of the tax. The power of the legislature to impose, as a penalty, the doubling of the tax obligation has been upheld by this court. State ex rel. Hardy v. State Board of Equalization, 133 Mont. 43, 319 Pac. (2d) 1061, but it will be noted that I likewise disagreed with the majority opinion on that point and still believe the majority opinion in that case is erroneous. Ordinarily I would now yield to the majority opinion on that point also on the ground of stare decisis had the opinion been one of long standing. The opinion was rendered on January 8, 1958, and in fact the statute had been changed prior to the decision and the penalty was reduced to 25 percent.
The majority opinion in the Hardy case has not been acquiesced in by the general public over a period of years as is true in the cases of O’Connell and Mills, supra, and hence the members of this court are free to question its soundness. State ex rel. Morgan v. State Board of Examiners, 131 Mont. 188, 309 Pac. (2d) 336.
*55I think for the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in the Hardy case, supra, the tax should not be doubled. To do so is to impose excessive and unreasonable penalties contrary to the Constitution. I say this even though Commissioner Waddill disagrees with me. Commonwealth v. St. Matthews Gas & Electric Shop, Ky. 1952, 252 S. W. (2d) 673.
Furthermore the penalty of 100 percent should not be imposed here for another reason. By Chapter 163, Laws of 1955, the law was amended reducing the penalty to 25 percent. By necessary construction then, the law imposing a 100 percent penalty was repealed.
Chapter 163 contains no saving clause. While there is some conflict, the clear weight of authority supports the view that where a statute imposing a penalty has been repealed all rights to penalties which have theretofore accrued are gone.
The rule is stated in 85 C.J.S. Taxation, sec. 1022 c, p. 579, as follows:
“On repeal of a statute imposing penalties on tax delinquents, the penalties cease to accrue; and, while the contrary doctrine has been maintained, the weight of authority is to the effect that all rights to penalties which have theretofore accrued are gone, in the absence of a constitutional provision to the contrary, unless the right be saved by the repealing act; and this is true both where suits have been commenced or claims made for the penalty before the repealing act was passed, and where suit was brought to enforce the penalty after the passage of the repealing act. Repeal after assessment and accrual of penalty has been held to debar revival of the penalty, although the tax itself may be revived.”