Court Opinion

ID: 9529151
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:48:04.190117+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:41.688879
License: Public Domain

Schwellenbach, J.
(concurring) — I agree with the majority that the act is unconstitutional, but upon another ground. I believe that the act imposes a state tax for a state purpose, and, in so doing, it violates Art. VII, § 6, of the state constitution, which provides:
“All taxes levied and collected for state purposes shall be paid in money only into the state treasury.”
The dissent has quoted the entire act. There can be no doubt as to the intention of the legislature. Section 2 states that the education of all children residing within the state is declared to be a state function and that each school district is declared to be carrying out a state function for state purposes. Newman v. Schlarb held that the establishment and maintenance of public schools throughout the state is primarily and essentially a state purpose, and that the statute under consideration in that case did not impose á tax upon the county for county purposes, but for state purposes.
RCW 84.48.080, defining the powers of the state board of equalization, provides that it shall
*792“ . . . examine and compare the returns of the assessment of the property in the several counties of the state, and the assessment of the property of railroad and other companies assessed by the tax commission, and proceed to equalize the same, SO' that each county in the state shall pay its due and just proportion of the taxes for state purposes for such assessment year, according to the ratio the valuation of the property in each county bears to the total valuation of all property in the state.
“The board shall classify all property, real and personal, and shall raise and lower the valuation of any class of property in any county to a value that shall be equal and uniform in so far as possible, in every part of the state, for the purpose of ascertaining the just amount of tax due from each county for state purposes. ...” (Italics mine.)
RCW 84.48.090 provides:
“The state board of equalization shall levy the state taxes authorized by law and shall apportion the amount of tax for state purposes among the several counties, in proportion to the valuation of the taxable property of the county for the year as equalized by the board.” (Italics mine.)
These proceedings are certified to the state auditor, who shall transmit a transcript to each county assessor, “specifying the amount to be levied and collected on the assessment books for state purposes for such year.” RCW 84.48.110. The county assessor shall include for extension on the tax rolls, among others, the rates of levies certified to him for state purposes. RCW 84.52.010.
RCW 84.56.280 (Sup. 1955) provides in part:
“Immediately after the last day of each month, the county treasurer shall pay over to the state treasurer the amount collected by him and credited to the various state funds, but every such payment shall be subject to correction for error discovered upon the quarterly settlement next following. The county auditor shall at the same time ascertain and report to the state auditor in writing the amounts due to the various state funds. If they are not paid to the state treasurer before the twentieth day of the month he shall make a sight draft on the county treasurer for such amount. . . . ” (Italics mine.)
No provision was made in this act for turning the taxes collected over to the state treasurer. This is not a local tax *793in the sense that it is levied by the local taxing authorities, who, in so doing, act as agents for the state. As I have already pointed out, the local taxing authorities always levy taxes for state purposes, and, in so doing, they act as agents for the state. However, they are required, under the law, to pay any money collected for state purposes over to the state treasurer.
Respondents, in their brief, state that this act does not purport to impose a tax, nor to assess property for tax purposes; that it simply establishes a procedure for equalization of assessed valuations. An examination of the record in this case makes it clear that the purpose and result of the act is to raise additional taxes. Appellants’ tax has been increased in the amount of $336.86. We should not wear blinders when we consider this problem. I repeat the title and § 3 of the act:
“An Act relating to the valuation of property for purposes of school district tax levies; and requiring school district tax levies to he imposed upon property valuations as determined by county assessors and equalized by the state board of equalization; and declaring an emergency.” (Italics mine.)
“Sec. 3. All tax levies made by or for any school district shall be based on the assessed valuation of the taxable property within each respective school district, which assessed valuation shall be the value (1) placed upon said property by the county assessor as equalized by the county board of equalization, and by the tax commission in respect to property assessed by it pursuant to chapters 84.12 and 84.16 RCW, (2) and equalized at fifty percent of true and fair value in money by the state board of equalization.”
The provisions covering valuation and tax levies are bound together in such a manner that one cannot be considered without the other. A tax levy is a part of the procedure used in the collection of taxes.
The act provides for the imposition of a tax for a state purpose and violates Art. VII, § 6, of the state constitution because no provision is made to remit the taxes collected to the state treasurer.
Donworth, J., concurs with Schwellenbach, J.