Cory v. Bird

Opinion

SMITH, J. This is an appeal from an order fixing inheritance tax.

The referee and trial court applied the law in effect before Propositions 5 and 6, which have the effect of repealing the gift and inheritance tax, were passed at the June 8, 1982 statewide election.1

[735]The decedent died on March 13, 1982. If the retroactivity provision of Proposition 5 had been applied, the tax would have been $6,171. Instead, under prior law, the court fixed it at $20,732.

The issues presented by this appeal concern the construction and constitutionality of Propositions 5 and 6.

Appellant maintains that: 1) Propositions 5 and 6 can be fully harmonized, and the retroactivity provision of Proposition 5 can be given effect; 2) Proposition 5, insofar as it applies to deaths which occurred prior to its enactment, does [736]not violate the constitutional prohibition against gifts of public moneys (Cal. Const., art. XVI, § 6); and 3) these two initiative statutes do not circumvent the constitutional prohibition against referenda on tax levies.2

Respondent urges that: 1) the retroactivity provision of Proposition 5 is in irreconcilable conflict with Proposition 6, which, because it received more votes, must control; and 2) the application of the retroactivity provision of Proposition 5 would constitute an unconstitutional gift of public money.

We hold that the retroactivity provision of Proposition 5 cannot stand and therefore uphold the judgment.

It is a cardinal rule of statutory construction that statutes relating to the same subject matter must be read together and reconciled whenever possible. (See Fuentes v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Board (1976) 16 Cal.3d 1, 6-7 [128 Cal.Rptr. 673, 547 P.2d 449]; Organization of Deputy Sheriffs v. County of San Mateo (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 331, 340 [122 Cal.Rptr. 210].) This rule applies to initiative measures enacted as statutes as well as to acts of the Legislature. (58 Cal.Jur.3d, Statutes, §§ 82, 84, 105, pp. 430, 435, 479.) However, in case of an irreconcilable conflict between the provisions of two or more measures approved at the same election, California Constitution, article II, section 10, subdivision (b) provides that “those of the measure receiving the highest affirmative vote shall prevail.”3