Opinion letter to the Honorable Hubert L. Davidson

December 18, 1968 Opinion No. 2 Answered by Letter (Wood) Honor able Hubert L. Davidson Prosecuting Attorney I F f L E 0 2 Thayer , Missouri Dear Mr. Davi dson : You have requested an opinion from this off ice as to whether real property not assessed by the county assessor after the United States Forest Service took an option on such property can be there- a f ter assessed so that the taxes duri ng the period of the option, and thus prior t o_acquisition of title by the United States, can be collected . There is a statute provi ding for the assessment of real property by the assessor which has been omitted 11by any meansn from assessment in prior years : "Procedure of assessing real estate omitted f rom tax books. - - If y any means any tract of land or town lot shall be omitted in the assessment of any year or series of years , and not put upon the assessor ' s book, the same, when discovered, shall ~e ~ ssessed by the assessor for t he t i me being, and placed upon his book before the same is returned to the court, with all arrearages of tax which ought to have been assessed and paid in former years charged thereon. 11 (sec tion 137.165, RSMo. 1959. ) In light of this section, it is our opinion that the property in question can be placed on the tax books by the assessor. 1-Te are enclosing opinion No. 76 rendered June 25, 1945, t o Horace T. Robinson which holds that assessment of" omitted real prop- erty may be made by the assessor, the county board of equalization or the State Tax Commission. Honorable Hubert L. Davidson However, si nce the land is now owned by the Federal Govern- ment the means of collecting the t ax are considerably reduced . There are two methods of enforcing payment of real property taxes in thi s State, ( 1) (2 ) by sale o~ the real property, and thr ough seizure and sale of personal property of t he land owner. (Stat e ex rel Greene County v . City of Spring- f ield , 375 SW2d 84 (Bane , 1964) ) . Obtiously the land cannot be 3old si nce it i s now owned by t he F~d eral Government (27 Am . J•:'!: . 2d Eminent Domain, Sect ion 256, p . 32, ~tate ex rel City of St . Louis ,-. Baumann , 153 SW2d 31 (Bane, 1941 ) . The lien attaches to the land and survi ves such ownership should the United St~tes dispose of the proper ty . I t simply cannot be enforced through sale of t he land whi l e so owned (Uni t ed States v . Alabama, 313 U.S . 274, d5 L.Ed. 1327, 61 S. Ct . lJl l ( 1941); 158 A.L. R. 563 ) . Ther efore, collecti on of the t ax can only be effec ted through di straint oi personal property of the person or persons who owned the land prior to t he date of acqui- siti on of title by the United States, as pr ovided in Secti on 139 . - 120 RSMo . 1959. (See St . Louis Provident Associ ation v . Gruner, 199 SvT2d 4J9 (Div . 1 , 1947) ) . For your information we are enclosing & copy of an earlier opinion r endered by this ofr'ice to Roy d . McGhee , Jr . , dated November 2J , 1956, which states the f oregoing principles in more detai l . Your s ~ery truly, NORMAN H. ANDERSON Attorney General Enclosure : Opi ni on 59, McGhee, 11-20-56 Opinion 76, Robinson, 6-25-45 - 2 -