Here, the Department has conceded that the Attorney General's opinion set forth the correct interpretation of Oklahoma law. Although this reason standing alone might not be sufficient to reach this result, there are other factors which require that we reach the same conclusion as that of the Attorney General. Hendrick v. Walters, 1993 OK 162, ¶ 17, 865 P.2d 1232, 1241-42; Oral Roberts Univ. v. Oklahoma Tax Com'n, 1985 OK 97, ¶ 9, 714 P.2d 1013, 1014-15; Berry v. Public Empl. Retirement System, 1989 OK 14, ¶ 8, 768 P.2d 898, 900. ¶ 14 The determination of legislative intent controls statutory interpretation.
We are reluctant to disturb a long-standing and consistent practice by a taxing authority whose construction of a tax exemption has for decades been acquiesced in by the taxpayer. Schulte Oil Co., Inc. v. Oklahoma Tax Com'n, supra note 13 at §, 882 P.2d at 69; Oral Roberts University v. Oklahoma Tax Com'n, supra note 12 at §, 714 P.2d at 1015; Berry v. State ex rel. Public Employees Retirement System, 1989 OK 14, §-7, 768 P.2d 898, 900; Mazzio's Corp. v. Oklahoma Tax Com'n., 1989 OK CIV APP 86, § 4, 789 P.2d 632, 634. United Airlines, Inc. v. State Bd. Of Equalization, 1990 OK 29, § 8, 789 P.2d 1305, 1311-1312; Oral Roberts University v. Oklahoma Tax Com'n, supra note 12 at §, 714 P.2d at 1014-1015; Berry v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Public Employees Retirement System, supra note 17 at ¶¶ 6-7, 768 P.2d at 900; Oklahoma Industries Authority v. Barnes, 1988 OK 98, § 1, 769 P.2d 115, 118 n. 9; Mazzio's Corp. v. Oklahoma Tax Com'n., supra note 17 at § 4, 789 P.2d at 634.
OAC 310:638-1-4 (2000), see note 33, supra; OAC 310:638-7-5 (1995), see note 35, supra.Berry v. Public Employees Retirement System, 1989 OK 14, ¶ 8, 768 P.2d 898. ¶ 21 3) Rules of statutory construction do not support this Court's reading of exceptions into the regulatory scheme requiring the utilization of different EBT devices on a single breath sample.
In Berry v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Public Employees Retirement System, 768 P.2d 898 (Okla. 1989), we quoted the following with approval: "'Where the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous and its meaning clear and no occasion exists for the application of rules of construction, the statute will be accorded the meaning as expressed by the language therein employed.'"
"Where the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous and its meaning clear and no occasion exists for the application of rules of construction, the statute will be accorded the meaning as expressed by the language" used. Berry v. State ex rel. Okla. Pub. Emps. Ret. Sys., 1989 OK 14, ¶ 6, 768 P.2d 898(citation omitted). ¶18 We are not persuaded by OTA's apparent argument that the legal descriptions in the OTA/Mamosa Deed pertaining to the exceptions provide such notice.
"The fundamental rule of statutory construction is to ascertain the intent of the legislature," State v. Tate , 2012 OK 31, ¶ 7, 276 P.3d 1017 (citation omitted), "and that intent is first sought in the language of the statute," YDF, Inc. v. Schlumar, Inc. , 2006 OK 32, ¶ 6, 136 P.3d 656 (citation omitted). "Where the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous and its meaning clear and no occasion exists for the application of rules of construction, the statute will be accorded the meaning as expressed by the language" used. Berry v. State ex rel. Okla. Pub. Emps. Ret. Sys. , 1989 OK 14, ¶ 6, 768 P.2d 898 (citation omitted). ¶18 We are not persuaded by OTA's apparent argument that the legal descriptions in the OTA/Mamosa Deed pertaining to the exceptions provide such notice.
The primary goal of statutory construction is to ascertain and follow the intention of the Legislature. Ledbetter v. Alcoholic Beverage Laws Enforcement Comm'n, 1988 OK 117, ¶ 7, 764 P.2d 172, 179. If a statute “is plain and unambiguous and its meaning clear and no occasion exists for the application of rules of construction, the statute will be accorded the meaning as expressed” by the language used. Berry v. State ex rel. Okla. Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 1989 OK 14, ¶ 6, 768 P.2d 898, 899–900 (citation omitted). It is presumed “the Legislature expressed its intent in the statute ... and ... intended what it expressed.”
We find the "strikingly opposing views of its meaning" demonstrates the Exclusion is ambiguous. McNeill v. City of Tulsa , 1998 OK 2, ¶10, 953 P.2d 329 ; see also Berry v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Public Employees Retirement System , 1989 OK 14, ¶ 7, 768 P.2d 898, 900.¶25 The ambiguity arises from the phrase "known as ‘golf carts,’ ‘go-carts’ " and § 2357.22(C)'s failure to answer the question that phrase poses, "known by whom?"
Statutes granting exemptions "must be liberally construed to comport with the beneficent spirit that prompted their enactment," In re Booth, 18 F.Supp. p. 80. Oklahoma statutes in general are to be construed in such manner as tends to effect their purpose, In re McKaskle, 117 B.R. 671, 674 (B.C., N.D.Okl.1990). Nor should any part of a statute be given a construction which is absurd, unreasonable, oppressive, or manifestly at variance with the intent and purpose of the Legislature in enacting the statute as a whole, Berry v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Public Employees Retirement System, 768 P.2d 898 (Okl.1989); In re Concer's Estate, 271 P.2d 329 (Okl.1954). The homestead exemption is the most urgent of all exemptions, the only one to be included in the Oklahoma Constitution, In re Shields, 85 B.R. p. 583.
Assessments for Tax Year 2012 of Certain Properties Owned by Throneberry v. Wright, 2021 OK 7, n.37, 481 P.3d 883, 894 (citing Rogers v. Quiktrip, 2010 OK 3, ¶ 13, 230 P.3d 853, 860 (when examining whether an irreconcilable conflict was present in then current statutory language the Court explained the purpose of an enactment created by the legislature in 1933). Assessments for Tax Year 2012 etc., supra note 35 at 2021 OK 7, n.37, 481 P.3d at 894 (citing Berry v. State ex rel. Okla. Pub. Emps. Ret. Sys., 1989 OK 14, 768 P.2d 898, 899 (any doubt as to the meaning of a statute may be resolved by reference to its history) (citing Lekan v. P & L Fire Protection Co., 1980 OK 56, 609 P.2d 1289, 1292)). Assessments for Tax Year 2012, etc., supra note 35 at 2021 OK 7, n.38, 481 P.3d at 895 (citing In re Guardianship of Stanfield, 2012 OK 8, ¶¶ 12-20, 276 P.3d 989, 994-999 (discussion of 1924 legislation in the context of then contemporary court opinions, and how this authority related to application of current statutes which included subsequent codification of the 1924 legislation))