Opinion
May 26, 1950.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Dixie County, R.H. Rowe, J.
J. Lewis Hall, Tallahassee, for appellant.
J.L. Blackwell, Live Oak, for appellee.
This is a mandamus proceeding brought in the Circuit Court of Dixie County, Florida, to compel the Tax Assessor of Dixie County to lower the valuations for assessment purposes of personal property for the year 1949 as owned by Shamrock Properties, Inc., a corporation, from the sum of $50,798.00, as fixed by the respondent-appellant Tax Assessor, to the sum of $40,798.00, as fixed by the Board of County Commissioners. The order reducing the amount of the assessment was entered by the Board of County Commissioners, after notice and hearing, pursuant to statute, which meeting was attended by named taxpayers, the relator-appellee and the respondent-appellant, Tax Assessor.
The Board of County Commissioners, at their July, 1949, meeting, after giving notice as required by law, proceeded to hear and consider complaints on the part of taxpayers of Dixie County on the question of valuations of property as submitted by the Tax Assessor for taxation purposes for the year 1949. The appellee-relator presented to the Board a complaint at the aforesaid meeting as to alleged excessive valuations on its property for the year 1949 as fixed by the respondent-appellant Tax Assessor. The Board, after hearing all interested parties, made and entered its order, the effect of which was to reduce the amount of the valuations as proposed by the Tax Assessor on the relator-appellee's personal property situated in Dixie County for the year 1949.
The relator-appellee amended paragraph two of its original petition to read as follows: "That your petitioner is the owner of certain personal property, situate, lying and being in Dixie County, Florida, that it was such owner of said personal property on January 1st, 1949, and has been and is still the owner thereof, that said personal property is not specifically described on the assessment roll. That on March 17th, 1949, petitioner gave in its personal property and filed with the defendant as Tax Assessor under oath a full and correct return of its personal property owned in said County for the year 1949, which return showed the aggregate value of said personal property as being $28,098.00; that said return was made on forms furnished by the said Tax Assessor and said return was delivered to the said Tax Assessor who received and accepted the same and made no objection as to the form of the same, and the Agent of petitioner who filed the same with the Tax Assessor believed that said form and tax return was in proper order and was full and correct. That said Tax Assessor accepted from petitioner's agent said return as delivered to him, but did not accept the value of said personal property as stated therein as the true value of the same, but assessed the petitioner's said personal property for the year 1949 at a value of $50,798.00."
The relator-appellee's amended paragraph four of its original petition alleged that O.M. Anderson was its agent and authorized to appear before the Board of County Commissioners and protest the valuation placed on its personal property by the Assessor and was fully authorized to request a reduction of the assessment thereof as made by the Tax Assessor at the sum of $50,798.00. An examination of the written return of personal property for the year 1949 appeared in the record as made to the Assessor by Shamrock Properties, Inc., upon its face discloses that it was not made under oath as prescribed by Section 193.27, F.S.A. The agent Anderson was not under oath, it is contended, when he protested the valuation of the personal property before the Board of County Commissioners. The Board, on this request, entered its order reducing the valuation of the personal property in the sum of $10,000.00.
The appellant-respondent, by letter dated July 22, 1949, addressed to the Board of County Commissioners, stated that the reduction order in the sum of $10,000.00 so entered by it was contrary to law and it was his intention to disregard the reduction order, which he considered invalid, and that it was his intention to extend on the assessment roll for the year 1949 the value of the appellee's personal property in the sum of $50,798.00. The point is made that the following language of Section 193.27, F.S.A., was totally disregarded by the appellee in making its return and by the Board of County Commissioners in ordering a $10,000.00 reduction in the Assessor's valuation: "It is unlawful for the county commissioners to lower the assessment of any personal property given in by the owner or assessed by the assessor, which shall not have been specified under oath". (Emphasis supplied.)
The alternative writ alleged, upon information and belief, that the Tax Assessor extended the roll and computed the totals thereon based upon assessed valuation of personal property appearing on the rolls of his office, as originally determined by him and has not, as required by law, extended the roll and computed the totals thereof based upon the valuations as fixed by the Board of County Commissioners sitting as a Board of Tax Equalizers and not by the valuations fixed and determined by the Tax Assessor. The command of the alternative writ required the Tax Assessor to extend the valuations upon the personal property of the relator-appellee in accordance with the equalization thereof as fixed by the Board of County Commissioners, sitting as a Board of Tax Equalizers, upon the tax roll of Dixie County, Florida, or to show cause for not so doing.
The record discloses that the defendant-appellant filed a motion to quash the alternative writ of mandamus and the amendments to the original petition; and pertinent grounds of the motion being: (1) that the Board of County Commissioners of Dixie County was without jurisdiction to reduce the valuation placed on the personal property of the appellee; (2) The Board of County Commissioners, under Section 193.27, F.S.A., was without jurisdiction to lower the valuation placed on the personal property by the Assessor appellant; (3) it affirmatively appears by the record that the appellee never filed a written return under oath setting forth a description and valuation of all of its personal property; neither was the relator under oath at the hearing had before the Board of County Commissioners at its July meeting when the $10,000.00 reduction in valuation order was entered. The court below entered its order denying the appellant's motion to quash the alternative writ and the amended alternative writ under date of December 8, 1949.
The assessor-appellant's answer to the alternative writ alleged that the full cash value of the appellee's personal property situated in Dixie County on January 1, 1949, was the sum of $50,798.00 and the assessor-appellant assessed said property for that amount and in so doing assessed the same on an equal and uniform basis without discrimination or excessive valuation. It is true that the appellee, through an agent, made a return of the personal property owned by it for taxation purposes but the same was unacceptable to the assessor-appellant because: (1) the return did not include all the personal property situated in Dixie County owned by it on January 1, 1949; (2) the return omitted personal property owned by it situated in Dixie County of great value; (3) the return was not sworn to by the agent of the appellee; (4) the return fixed the value of all personal property owned by the appellee at the sum of $28,098.00; (5) the assessment in the sum of $50,798.00 included all omitted property from appellee's return and owned by it situated in Dixie County on January 1, 1949 as assessed on an equal and uniform basis without discrimination or excessive valuations.
Paragraph four of the assessor-appellant's answer to the alternative writ set out that the Board of County Commissioners of Dixie County was without jurisdiction to hear, rule upon or to enter an order reducing the valuation as fixed by the appellant at the sum of $50,798.00, and for this reason the reduction thereof in the sum of $10,000.00 was contrary to Section 193.27, F.S.A.; that the reduction order so entered by the Board was arbitrary, capricious and contrary to law. The court below entered an order sustaining a demurrer to the answer of the assessor-appellant. A peremptory writ of mandamus issued which commanded the assessor-appellant to extend the valuation of the appellee's personal property upon the assessment roll of Dixie County for the year 1949 from $50,798.00 to the sum of $40,798.00 in accordance with the equalization as determined by the Board of County Commissioners of Dixie County at its July, 1949, meeting. The assessor-respondent appealed.
The case of Sanders v. P.C. Crapps Son, 45 So.2d 484, was recently considered by this Court. In that case the Board of County Commissioners of Dixie County at its July 1949, meeting sitting as a Board of Tax Equalization, assumed jurisdiction and entered an order reducing the valuation for assessment purposes on described lands situated in Dixie County. The valuations so reduced were originally fixed by the Tax Assessor of Dixie County. It is true that this suit involved land assessments, while the case at bar involves personal property. The statutory method of obtaining reductions of valuations in the two classes of property as made by a County Tax Assessor is different.
Counsel of record for the respective parties pose here for adjudication four separate questions which may be considered and treated as a single assignment. The questions are viz.:
1. Does a Board of County Commissioners sitting as a Board of Equalization have jurisdiction and power to reduce valuations placed on personal property by Tax Assessor when neither excessive valuation nor discrimination is shown?
2. Does a Board of County Commissioners sitting as a Board of Equalization have power and jurisdiction to reduce valuations placed on personal property by Tax Assessor when protest of property owner does not specify such personal property under oath?
3. Can a Tax Assessor question the validity of action of Board of County Commissioners in reducing valuations placed on personal property by Tax Assessor on the grounds that the statute requires protest of property owner to be under oath and that no such protest was made?
4. Is it an abuse of judicial discretion to grant motion for peremptory writ of mandamus when it appears without contradiction that the granting of such writ will give preference to petitioners in the matter of valuations of their property for taxes and result in petitioners not having to pay their fair share of the tax burden of the county?
In the case of Sparkman v. State ex rel. Bank of Ybor City, 71 Fla. 210, 71 So. 34, we held that the Board of County Commissioners of a county have no general power in making tax assessments but only such special or limited power as is specifically conferred by statutes in order to secure equalization of tax values. Section 193.11, F.S.A., directs the Tax Assessor of each county to acquaint himself with the names of all taxable persons and taxable personal property situated in his county. Tax returns by owners or agents must be made to the Tax Assessor between the first of January and the first of April of each year. Property shall be assessed at its full cash value. The assessment of tangible personal property shall be made separate from the assessment of real estate.
Section 193.12, F.S.A., makes it the duty of every person owning property subject to taxation to make a return thereof to the County Tax Assessor and the owner is required to give the character of the property and its true cash value and upon his failure so to do the assessment and valuation made by the assessing officer shall be deemed and held to be binding upon such owner or other person or corporation interested in such property, unless complaint is made of such assessment and valuation on the day set for hearing complaints and receiving testimony as to the value of any property, real or personal, as fixed by the County Tax Assessor. Section 193.13, F.S.A., requires owners of personal property to state the amount and list of his personal property and to make oath before the Assessor that the same is full and correct and any person refusing to take such oath shall not be permitted afterwards to reduce the valuation made by such County Tax Assessor of his personal property for that year. The Assessor has the authority to increase the value of the property or to decrease it and arrive at its true value.
Section 193.25, F.S.A., requires the Tax Assessor to complete his tax assessment roll and pursuant to law on or before the first Monday in July of each year meet with the Board of County Commissioners, sitting as a Board of Equalizers, and the Assessor and the Board hear complaints as to the value of any property as fixed by the Assessor. The Board of Equalization has the power to increase or decrease assessments as fixed by the Assessor, subject to the limitations recited in Section 193.27, F.S.A., which are viz.: "The board of county commissioners may equalize the assessment of the real estate or personal property in their respective counties, and for that purpose may raise or lower the value fixed by the county assessor of taxes on any particular piece of real estate, or item or items of personal property. It is unlawful for the county commissioners to lower the assessment of any personal property given in by the owner or assessed by the assessor, which shall not have been specified under oath. The county commissioners failing to obey this provision shall be subject to a fine of fifty dollars each, and suspension."
Pertinent here is Section 200.11, F.S.A., which is viz.: "In the hearings provided for in the preceding section, the county assessors of taxes and the county commissioners shall require every person complaining to give in a complete list of his tangible personal property under oath with the full cash value of the same, and to make oath that the valuations fixed to each item thereof are the full cash valuation of the same, and that the list submitted by the taxpayer is full and complete. If any person shall refuse to make such oath he shall not be permitted afterwards to have reduced the valuation made by the county assessor of his personal property for that year".
Likewise Section 200.12, F.S.A., viz.: "Regardless of any return which may be filed by any taxpayer, the valuation of any item or items of property shown in the return shall in no case prevent the county assessor of taxes from determining and assessing the full cash value according to his information and best judgment, or from determining and entering upon the return of the taxpayer any item or items of tangible personal property which the county assessor may find has been omitted therefrom, subject to the restrictions and limitations mentioned in this chapter".
Also the following portion of Section 200.20, F.S.A., viz.: "At the meeting of the board of county commissioners as a board of equalization, for the purpose of hearing complaints and receiving testimony and for reviewing, revising, and equalizing the tangible personal property tax roll, the board may make such changes in valuation and assessments of tangible personal property, shown on the tangible personal property tax roll submitted by the tax assessor, and may make such additions of taxable tangible personal property thereto which have been omitted therefrom, as may be necessary to equalize the assessment and make the same fair and just. * * *"
It is contended by counsel for appellee that the pertinent provisions of Sections 193.27 and 200.20, supra, are repugnant to and in conflict one with the other and by implication the other provisions of Section 193.27 are each invalid and unenforceable. We are unable to agree to this conclusion because it is an established rule of statutory construction that statutes which relate to the same person or thing or to the same class of persons and things may be regarded as in pari materia, and a field of operation may be found for the respective statutes which deal here largely with assessment of taxes and duties of the tax assessor and the Board of County Commissioners sitting as a Board of Equalization functioning in a common effort to obtain a uniform and equal rate of taxation and secure just valuations of all property, real and personal. See Section 1 of Article 9 of the Florida Constitution, F.S.A.
The record affirmatively shows that Shamrock Properties, Inc., never filed a return for taxation of its personal property under oath; the partial return as filed with the Assessor failed to give an accurate list thereof and the valuation thereof was placed at $28,098.00; it omitted therefrom certain valuable personal property and the effect was to reduce the amount of the valuation. "It is unlawful for the county commissioners to lower the assessment of any personal property given in by the owner or assessed by the assessor, which shall not have been specified under oath". If the property had been returned under oath to the Assessor for taxation by the owner, then the County Commissioners had or possessed the statutory power to reduce the assessment, but since the return was by the owner not made under oath the Board was without statutory power to reduce the assessment and such $10,000.00 reduction is therefore invalid and cannot be sustained.
It is our conclusion that the answer of the respondent-appellant to the alternative writ of mandamus constituted a sufficient legal defense to bar or preclude the issuance in the lower court of the peremptory writ of mandamus. See State ex rel. Gillespie v. Carlton, 103 Fla. 810, 138 So. 612; State ex rel. Sharp v. Lee, 147 Fla. 663, 3 So.2d 372.
Reversed.
ADAMS, C.J., and TERRELL and THOMAS, JJ., concur.