Union Trust Co. v. Spokane County

8 Citing cases

  1. King County v. Tax Commission

    63 Wn. 2d 393 (Wash. 1963)   Cited 3 times

    We have said that if there was any doubt as to the meaning of a taxing statute, it must be construed most strongly against the taxing power in favor of the taxpayer. Buffelen Lbr. Mfg. Co. v. State (1948), 32 Wn.2d 40, 200 P.2d 509; Weyerhaeuser Tbr. Co. v. Henneford (1936), 185 Wn. 46, 53 P.2d 308; Union Trust Co. of Spokane v. Spokane Cy. (1927), 145 Wn. 193, 259 P. 9. I believe that King County was entitled to the benefit of a very real doubt as to whether the legislature intended the clearing of river channels for flood control purposes to be the "clearing of land."

  2. Guinness v. State

    40 Wn. 2d 677 (Wash. 1952)   Cited 14 times

    "It is the law of this state that, in case of doubt, taxing statutes are construed in favor of the taxpayer and against the taxing power. Union Trust Co. v. Spokane County, 145 Wn. 193, 259 P. 9; Denny v. Wooster, 175 Wn. 272, 27 P.2d 328; and State ex rel. Tacoma School Dist. v. Kelly, 176 Wn. 689, 30 P.2d 638."

  3. Thys v. State

    31 Wn. 2d 739 (Wash. 1948)   Cited 4 times

    [4] It is also true, as contended by respondents, that taxing statutes are, in doubtful cases, to be construed in favor of the taxpayer. Union Trust Co. v. Spokane County, 145 Wn. 193, 259 P. 9. Counsel for respondents, in his opening statement before the trial court, said:

  4. Pacific Etc. Ass'n v. Pierce County

    27 Wn. 2d 347 (Wash. 1947)   Cited 32 times

    [2] It is the law of this state that, in case of doubt, taxing statutes are construed in favor of the taxpayer and against the taxing power. Union Trust Co. v. Spokane County, 145 Wn. 193, 259 P. 9; Denny v. Wooster, 175 Wn. 272, 27 P.2d 328; and State ex rel. Tacoma School Dist. v. Kelly, 176 Wn. 689, 30 P.2d 638. [3] It is elementary that municipal corporations secure their right, not only to tax, but assess, from express legislative authority, which in turn derives its warrant from our state constitution.

  5. Petroleum Nav. Co. v. King County

    1 Wn. 2d 489 (Wash. 1939)   Cited 4 times

    "It is not contended, indeed it could not well be argued, that there would be any lack of jurisdiction in the court in the absence of this statute. In Union Trust Co. v. Spokane County, 145 Wn. 193, 259 P. 9, we quoted, with approval, as being in harmony with the great weight of authority, from Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151, as follows: "`In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established rule not to extend their provisions, by implication, beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out.

  6. State v. Pacific Tel. Tel. Co.

    195 Wn. 244 (Wash. 1938)   Cited 3 times

    Laws relating to taxation, and the imposition of penalties for derelictions in payment of taxes are construed against the government and in favor of the citizen. Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151, 62 L.Ed. 211, 38 S.Ct. 53; Union Trust Co. v. Spokane County, 145 Wn. 193, 259 P. 9; Weyerhaeuser Timber Co. v. Henneford, 185 Wn. 46, 53 P.2d 308; Millett v. Mullen, 95 Me. 400, 49 A. 871. The statutory conditions precedent to the imposition of the 12% penalty not having been followed, it cannot be imposed upon respondent.

  7. Weyerhaeuser Timber Co. v. Henneford

    53 P.2d 308 (Wash. 1936)   Cited 6 times

    [2] There can be little doubt but that the legislature deliberately intended by the clause at the end of subdivision 14 of § 1, supra, "and engaged in the business of transporting forest products either as private carrier or carrier for hire," to include only such logging railroads as had become quasi-public carriers by holding themselves out as such carriers and transporting the logs of others than their own. If there is any doubt, however, this court has held, approving a pronouncement in Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151, 38 S.Ct. 53, that in case of doubt, taxing statutes are most strongly construed against the government and in favor of the citizen. Union Trust Co. v. Spokane County, 145 Wn. 193, 259 P. 9. The clause in question was deliberately added by the legislature in § 1-14, supra, to make its meaning clear and definite.

  8. Denny v. Wooster

    27 P.2d 328 (Wash. 1933)   Cited 17 times
    In Denny v. Wooster, 175 Wn. 272, 27 P.2d 328, December 1, 1933, the Supreme Court of Washington held that an action could be maintained against a county assessor "to prevent him from extending upon the tax rolls of the county * * * in excess of that permitted by * * * the 40 Mill-Law * * *". The court held that such an injunction was not prohibited by Remington's Revised Statutes, § 11315 — 1 prohibiting injunction or restraining orders "to restrain the collection of any tax or any part thereof * * *".

    It is not contended, indeed it could not well be argued, that there would be any lack of jurisdiction in the court in the absence of this statute. In Union Trust Co. v. Spokane County, 145 Wn. 193, 259 P. 9, we quoted, with approval, as being in harmony with the great weight of authority, from Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151, as follows: "In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established rule not to extend their provisions, by implication, beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out.