Court Opinion

ID: 9539390
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:03:35.814883+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:58:47.634740
License: Public Domain

IRWIN, Justice
(concurring specially).
Article X, Sec. 21, of the Constitution of Oklahoma provides that the duty of the State Board of Equalization shall be to adjust and equalize the valuation of real and personal property of the several counties of the State. Title 68 O.S.1951 § 15.43, provides that the Oklahoma Tax Commission shall render its findings as to the adjustment and equalization of the valuation of real and personal property of the several counties of the State and such findings shall be laid before the State Board of Equalization as recommendations for its final action.. Title 68 O.S.1951 § 15.44, provides that the State Board of Equalization shall hold a session commencing on the third Monday in June of each year for the purpose of equalizing the property of the several counties and it shall be the duty of the Board to equalize, correct and adjust the same as. between the several counties and of the-several counties.
The Oklahoma Tax Commission conducted a study, made findings and submitted its recommendations to the State Board of Equalization. The study was based on certain sales and transactions as compared with the assessed valuations and from this study the Tax Commission ascertained the average state-wide valuation of urban and rural! property. The State Board of Equalization based its order on the recommendations of the Tax Commission.
It has not been seriously contended that inequalities in valuations did not exist within some counties and between the several counties for many years. And, in my judgment, the evidence is sufficient to establish that the “ratio study” made and prepared! by the Oklahoma Tax Commission and submitted to the State Board of Equalization,, if not entirely correct, is substantially correct, and that the same was a proper yardstick upon which the State Board of Equalization could act.
The record fails to disclose that any previous order, similar or comparable to the order appealed from, has ever been rendered by the State Board of Equalization. Therefore, in my judgment, if inequalities in valuations do exist within some of the counties and between the several counties, the seeds for such inequalities were not planted nor did they sprout within a year prior to the time the “ratio study” was commenced. The seeds for such inequalities were planted shortly after statehood, nurtured for a few years and sprouted many years ago.
In my judgment, the Legislature, the Tax Commission, and the State Board of Equal*249ization recognized that inequalities within some counties and between the several counties existed. The State Senate and the House of Representatives, by separate Resolutions, stated that “It has been frequently reported that gross inequities exist in the assessment of real and personal property as between the various counties of Oklahoma as well as within the counties.” In the Resolutions, the State Board of Equalization was requested and directed to inquire into the valuation and to make adjustments and •equalizations thereof. However, it must be noted, the separate Resolutions enacted by the State Senate and House of Representatives did not direct the State Board of Equalization to equalize the valuations for the fiscal year 1959-60, but merely requested •such be done. In my judgment, the Legislature recognized that inequalities of valuation had come about over a period of years and that an adjustment and correction thereof should be brought about over a period of years.
The Oklahoma Tax Commission found and stated that to adjust all counties to the average ratio would require an increase in some counties as much as 75% and that “to attempt an immediate increase of the value •of any county in this State by 75% per year, would create an undue hardship upon all •concerned and in order to accomplish an orderly transition”, recommended that no valuation should be increased more than 10%. The State Board of Equalization followed these recommendations.
In my jrtdgment, inequalities in valuations existed within some counties and between the several counties for many years before the State Board of Equalization rendered its order. And in my judgment, the Order does not adjust and correct the inequalities as it is apparent inequalities still exist. However, the Order of the State Board of Equalization did remove some of the inequalities and is a step toward granting to all the taxpayers their right to have their property assessed equally and uniformly with the property of every other taxpayer.
The question then arises: “Where the Constitution and the statutes provide that the State Board of Equalization shall adjust and equalize the valuations, is an order which only tends to adjust and equalize valuations valid?”
The Tax Commission found in substance that to completely adjust and equalize the valuations in a single order or in any one year, “would create an undue hardship on all concerned.” In my judgment, where a rigid interpretation of the Constitution and our statutory provisions would create an undue hardship on the peoples of our State, which in effect would threaten the public welfare, then we should, without hesitation, apply a reasonable and practical interpretation in accord with common sense.
In my judgment, a reasonable and practical interpretation of our Constitution and statutory provision authorizes and empowers the State Board of Equalization to render the Order appealed from. I therefore concur specially in the opinion promulgated by a majority of my associates.
I am authorized to state that DAVISON, J., concurs in the views herein expressed.