Rode v. Siebe
Before: Beatty, Fleet, Harrison
Synopsis
Taxation—Assessment of Personal Property—Collection by Assessor— —Validity of Statute—Constitutional Law.—The statute requiring the assessor to collect the taxes assessed upon personal property at the time of the assessment, upon the basis of the levy of the previous year, where the taxes are not secured by lien upon real estate, with a provision for remission of any excess in the levy, is constitutional ■ and valid, and neither conflicts with article XIII of the constitution, requiring property to be taxed in proportion to its value, to be ascertained as provided by law, nor with subdivision 10 of section 25 of article IV, which prohibits the legislature from passing local or •special laws for the assessment or collection of taxes. [Van Fleet, J., and Harrison, J., dissenting.)
Id.—Hardship not to be Considered.—The fact that a law may work hardship in extreme cases cannot be considered in determining its validity.
Id.—Special Legislation—General Law—Classification—Secured and Unsecured Taxes.—The distinction between secured and unsecured taxes is intrinsic, and justifies a classification based thereupon; and a law providing for the collection of unsecured taxes upon personal property at a different time and in a different manner from the collection of taxes upon personal property which are secured by lien upon real estate, is general and uniform in its operation, and is not a special law for the collection of taxes within the meaning of the constitution.
Opinion — Beatty
BEATTY, C. J. The defendant is assessor of the city and county of San Francisco. The plaintiffs are residents of San Francisco, and in March, 1895, in response to defendant’s demand, made a return shoving that they were owners of personal property in said city and county subject to taxation for the ensuing fiscal year, but owned no real property. The defendant assessed their personal property, and on May 20, 1895, demanded payment of the tax, amounting, at the rate of the tax levy for the previous year, to seventy-one dollars and seventy-three cents, and threatened, in case of their refusal to pay, to seize and sell enough of said property to make the amount due. To restrain such threatened seizure and sale this action was begun. The superior court denied the injunction and plaintiffs appeal.
It is conceded that the proceedings of the assessor were sanctioned by the express provisions of the statute, but it is contended that a statute which authorizes the collection of taxes on personal property not secured by lien on real property, before equalization, before levy for the year and before the beginning of the fiscal year to which they belong, is unconstitutional in those particulars, and to that extent unenforceable.
The specific objection to the law is that it violates the constitutional requirement as to uniformity of all general laws, and especially of laws relating to taxation.
It will not be necessary, in order to indicate the position of appellants, to cite the various sections of our revenue law to which [520]reference has been made in the argument. It is sufficient to say that under the constitution and laws of California the fiscal year begins on the 1st of July and ends on the 30th of June. The taxes for each fiscal year accrue on the first Monday in March preceding its commencement, and become a lien from that date upon the real property of the respective tax payers. Where the real property of a tax payer is sufficient to secure the payment of all his taxes upon his personal property, as well as upon the realty itself, he is not required to pay the tax before the end of November; prior to which time the board of supervisors first, and the state-board of equalization afterward, equalize the assessments, and! then establish the rates for state and county purposes, according to which the tax is to be levied. But where a tax payer has no real property, or none sufficient to secure the payment of his taxes, the assessor is required to collect them at the time of making his assessment, and in case of failure to pay to sell sufficient of the property of the delinquent to make the amount of the tax with costs. As this collection must be enforced before the meeting of either board of equalization and before the rate for the ensuing year is ascertained and the levy made, it is provided that it shall be made according to the rate levied the previous year, and as this may be, and generally is, greater or less than the subsequent levy for the current year, provision is made for refunding to the tax payer any excess in the collection, and for the payment by him of any deficiency.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)