Montana Attorney General Opinion 15-233

Opinion No. 233 Ta..xcs-Paymcnt of-County Tt'easUI'ct' -Irrigation Districts. HETJD: It is not lllwful for a county trl'asnrer to accept payment of iI'rign- tion til xes without requiring' pll~'ment of the stll te 11m] county tIlXPS. .Tune 6. 193::1. It appears from your opinion. a ('op~' of which you kindly mailer] ns. that the county treasurer of Phillips County propounded to you the following ques- tion: "Is it lawful for me IlS county treasurer to accept pll~'ment of il'l;ga- tion taxes without requiring payment of the s/1ate and count.\· tllxes?" It fur- ther appears from your opinion thn t ~'()n answered the question in the nega- tive. You now wish us to confinn, if we may, the view yon expressed to the ('ounty treasurer. pa rticularly as you ha ye been subjecterl to much criticism on account thereof. After due consideration, we entirel~­ agree with the position you took in the matter. The last sentence of Section 7240, Revised Codes of ~Iontana 1921. on which you evidently largely relied. provides that "the county treasurer of each county shall collect such taxes or assessments (against in;gation dis· tricts) at the same time and in the same manner as county and state taxes." But Section 1 of Chapter 71, Laws of 1923, is still stronger. It reads as follo\ys: "It shall be the duty of the County Treasurer of each count~- in which any i rriga tion 01' drainage district is lo- cated, in whole or in part, to collect and receipt for all taxes and assess- ments, levied by any snch distriet, in the same manner and at the same time, and on the same receipt, as is required in the collection of taxes npon real estate for county purposes. Snch county treasurer shall not collect or receive or receipt for any taxes or assessments le\'ied for county purposes upon real estu te situnted wholly or in Il:Irt within any in;gation or drninage district upon which an assessment for the purposes of such irrigation or drainage has been IC\-ied, unless the said assessment leded for snch irriga, tion or drainage district PUl'poses be paid at the same time." Language could not be plainer than that. It lea "es no room for construc' tion. All taxes le,'ied against the land must be paid at the same time. \'ire may add here that general taxes are equal, if not superior, in dignity to ini- g'ation di;;;trict taxes or assessments. (State v. Board, 89 Mont. 37.) In the case of Moore y. Gas Securi- ties Co., 278 Fed. 111, whiCh il1'l'olved a question like that before us, the (,'11'- cuit Court of Appeals of the Eighth Circuit held that a county treasurer may not lawfully demand, receive and receipt for all other .taxes against the lands, leaving district taxes uncollected. (Booth Y. Clarke, 244 Pac. 1~)9, dis. op. Julien Y. Ainsworth, 27 Kan. 446,) The law eon templates that taxes shall he paid in full as they fall due. They cannot be paid piecemeal. (Gray v. Boundary County, 2nO Pac. 3!)9; 61 C. .T. 965; 3 Cooley on Taxation, 8'ee. 1253). In conclusion, we think the law should be obeyed hy all officers. Any attempt at e,'asion thereof would only lead to dangerous consequences. NOTE: Chapter 71, Laws of 192.3, supra, was amended by Chapter 73, Laws of 11)35, to permit payment of Irrigation District taxes "ithout pay- Illent of other taxes on the same real estate.