PROTEST OF CHICAGO R. I. & P. RY. CO.

PROTEST OF CHICAGO R. I. & P. RY. CO.
1933 OK 385
23 P.2d 158
164 Okla. 114
Case Number: 23526
Decided: 06/13/1933
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Protest of Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co.

Syllabus

¶0 1. Hospitals--Care of Tubercular Patients as State Charge--Statute Placing Tax Burden on Counties Held Unconstitutional in Part.
Under article 21 of the Constitution of Oklahoma, an institution for the care of tubercular patients which is maintained by the state shall be at the expense of the state. That portion of section 5281, O. S. 1931, which attempts to place a portion of that tax burden upon the counties is in violation of the Constitution and inoperative.
2. Same--Health--Portion of Statute Placing Upon County Expense of Caring for Tubercular Patients Within County and Expense of Promoting and Protecting Public Health Within County Held Constitutional.
That portion of section 5281, O. S. 1931, which places the expense of caring for tubercular patients in a county, the expense of the prevention of conditions in a county that are predisposing causes of tuberculosis and other devastating diseases, the expense of prevention and control of epidemics in a county, the promotion of the public health in a county and the expense of a county department of health, including compensation of its employees, upon that county, is a valid legislative enactment and is not in conflict with the provisions of article 21 of the Constitution.
3. Municipal Corporations -- Taxation -- Computation of Rate of Levy for Sinking Fund Purposes--Ten Per Cent. for Delinquent Taxes to Be Added to Amount Needed.
In computing the rate of levy for ad valorem taxation for sinking fund purposes, the amount of the needs of the sinking fund must be determined, and to that amount 10 per cent. may be added for delinquent taxes.
4. Same--Disposition of Surplus Taxes After Needs of Sinking Fund for Fiscal Year Fully Supplied.
When the needs of the sinking fund for any fiscal year are fully supplied by the funds collected for that year, whether they were collected during that year or during some subsequent year, any surplus collected must be carried forward as a surplus and used to reduce the rate of ad valorem taxation for the next fiscal year.
5. Same--Disposition of Subsequent Tax Collections Where Needs of Sinking Fund not Satisfied by Collections During Fiscal Year.
If the needs of a sinking fund for any fiscal year are not satisfied by the collections during that fiscal year and a deficit in the sinking fund results, that deficit may be made up when the revenue for that fiscal year is subsequently collected, but if the subsequent collection thereof results in a surplus over the needs of the sinking fund for that fiscal year, that surplus must be used to reduce the rate of ad valorem taxation for the next fiscal year and may not be used for the purpose of reducing an existing deficit in the sinking fund.

Appeal from Court of Tax Review; Porter Newman, Asa E. Walden, O. C. Wybrant, Judges.

In the matter of the protest of the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company against alleged illegal tax levied for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1932, made by the Excise Board of Carter County. Protest sustained, and protestee appeals. Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Marvin Shilling, Co. Atty., J. E. Williams, City Atty., and Williams & Williams, for plaintiff in error.
W. R. Bleakmore, John Barry, W. L. Farmer, and Robert E. Lee, for defendant in error.

ANDREWS, J.

¶1 This is an appeal by the protestee from a judgment of the Court of Tax Review sustaining the protest of the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company to certain tax levies for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 1931, made by the excise board of Carter county.

¶2 The plaintiff in error contends that there was error on the part of the Court of Tax Review in sustaining the protest as to .109 mill levied for what is known as the tubercular and public health fund of the county. That is the identical issue determined by this court in Re Protest of Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., cause numbered 23678, 164 Okla. 118, 23 P.2d 157. The decision in that case is applied herein, and the judgment of the Court of Tax Review is reversed with the same direction that was given in that case, which is to strike from the appropriation any portion thereof intended to be used for the purpose of defraying the expense of the treatment of patients afflicted with tuberculosis at any district sanatoria.

¶3 The plaintiff in error contends that there was error on the part of the Court of Tax Review in sustaining the protest as to a portion of the amount appropriated by the excise board for the sinking fund of the city of Ardmore. The record shows that the amount necessary to be raised for sinking fund purposes, with 10 per cent. added for delinquencies, was $ 145,862.12, and that the excise board deducted from that amount certain items of anticipated revenue totaling $ 13,212,72, leaving a balance to be raised by ad valorem taxation in the sum of $ 132,649.40. No attack was made on the deduction of the anticipated revenue. Apparently those items were not considered by the Court of Tax Review. The Court of Tax Review found and held that the appropriation for the sinking fund was excessive and ordered a reduction of the rate of levy fixed by the excise board to the extent of .5869 mill. That finding was based on a finding that there was a surplus unaccounted for. The plaintiff in error contends that that surplus was applied to make up, in part, an existing deficit in the sinking fund. The defendant in error contends that that surplus should have been applied to the reduction of the ad valorem tax for the fiscal year in question. The determination of that question is dependent upon the source from which the surplus was derived. If it was from sources other than ad valorem taxation, under the rule stated in Re Protest of Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 143 Okla. 161, 288 P. 337, it may be applied toward the existing deficit in the sinking fund and need not be applied to the reduction of the rate of ad valorem taxation for the current year. On the other hand, if it was derived from the collection of ad valorem taxes, its application is dependent upon the record as to the year for which those taxes were levied. If that record shows that any portion of the existing deficit in the sinking fund was caused by a failure to collect the full amount of the taxes during that fiscal year, so much of the taxes for that year subsequently collected as is necessary to make up that deficit may be used for that purpose. On the other hand, if there was no deficit for that fiscal year, the amount subsequently collected must be carried forward as a surplus and used to reduce the ad valorem tax for subsequent fiscal years. We are unable to determine from the record definitely the source from which the surplus was derived. If, as it appears from the record, the surplus was caused by the collection of some portion of the 10 per cent. added for delinquencies during the last preceding fiscal year, it must be carried forward as a surplus and used to reduce the rate of taxation for the current year, and it may not be used for the purpose of reducing the existing deficit in the sinking fund. In other words, if the needs of the sinking fund for any fiscal year were fully supplied by the funds collected by ad valorem taxation for that year, whether they were collected during that year or some subsequent year, any surplus collected must be carried forward as a surplus and used to reduce the rate of ad valorem taxation for the subsequent year. On the other hand, if those needs were not satisfied by the collection during the fiscal year for which the levy was made, and a deficit in the sinking fund resulted, that deficit may be made up when the taxes for that fiscal year are subsequently collected, but if there are subsequent collections exceeding the needs for that fiscal year, then the surplus must be used to reduce the rate of ad valorem taxation and may not be used for the purpose of reducing an existing deficit in the sinking fund.

¶4 It is further ordered that the time for filing a petition for rehearing herein is limited to ten days from this date.