Court Opinion

ID: 9678405
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:18:50.733457+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:04.230784
License: Public Domain

WOLLMAN, Chief Justice
(concurring specially).
Although I agree with the result reached in the majority opinion, I do not agree with the holding that tax statutes are to be construed liberally in favor of the taxpayer and strictly against the taxing body, for it has long been the rule in this state that revenue statutes are to be construed just as other statutes are.
In construing statutes governing tax proceedings, as in construing all other statutes, the legislative intent is the vital and controlling factor. A construction which will render effective and operative the general purpose existing in the legislative mind should be adopted rather than one which necessarily defeats such purpose. In an attempt to ascertain the legislative intent, the entire language and general purpose of the enactment relating to a particular subject-matter must be taken and considered together. Express words are not always required, where the purpose and intendment of an enactment as a whole are apparent.
Brink v. Dann, 33 S.D. 81, 112, 144 N.W. 734, 741 (1913). See also Berdahl v. Gillis, 81 S.D. 436, 136 N.W.2d 633 (1965); State ex rel. Botkin v. Welsh, 61 S.D. 593, 251 N.W. 189 (1933). Given this Court’s longstanding policy of not adopting a hostile stance towards revenue statutes, I would require a greater showing than that made in this case before joining in the new rule of statutory construction set forth in the majority opinion.