Montana Attorney General Opinion 15-350

Opinion No. 350 Taxation-Personal Property-Delin- quent Taxes-Collection-Receivers- County Treasurer. HELD: 'Vhere taxes are delinquent uJ)()n property in the hands of a receiv- er, the county treasurer should petition the court for an order directing the re- ceh'er to pay the taxes or, in the event there is not enough money on hand to (10 so, that he be permitted to seize and sell so much of the personal property as will suffke to satisfy the same. September 26, 1933. You state that the Sunburst Oil & Hefining Company, whose assets are IIOW and for almost two years have heen in the possession of a receiver appointed hy the federal court, has failed to pay the taxes levied upon its personal property in Liberty County and that, as a consequence, the county treasprer is desirous of seizing and selling enough of such property to sat- isfy the amount of such delinquent tax- es. As the receiver contends that the personal property of the corporation cannot be seized or sold without leave 236 OPINIONS OF THE ATTORXEY GENERAL of the court in which the receivership proceedings are pending, you have asked us for an opinion on the question of law involved and as to the best way to proceed in making collection of the taxes due. It is a rule of universal application that property in the hands of a receh-er is not withdrawn from taxation. It reo mains subject to assessment and to the payment of taxes thereon while in cus· todia legis to the same extent as when it was in the possession of the owner. (In re Tyler, 149 U. S. 164, 37 Law. Ed~ 689: Coy v. Title Guarantee & Trust Co., 220 Fed. 90; 53 C. .J. 243; 61 C. J. 217; 2 Cooley on Taxation, Section 606; 2 Tardy's Smith on Re- ceivers, Section 678; Alderson on Re- ceivers, §169a.) It is also the rule, however, that the possession of the receiver is the pos- session of the court, for the benefit of the parties to the suit and all con- cerned, and cannot be disturbed with- out the leave of the court, and that if any person without leave intentionally interferes with such possession, he nec- essarily commits a contempt of conrt and is liable to punishment therefor. (In re Tyler, supra; Dayton v. Stan- ard, 241 U. S. 588, 60 Laws. Ed. 1190; State V. District Court, 21 Mont. 155: Brictson Mfg. CO. V. Close, 25 Fed. (2d) 794; 2 Tardy's Smith on Receivers, §687; High on Receivers, §l40a; Alder- ~on on Receivers, §169a.) Under the circumstances, we believe it would be proper for the county treasurer to petition the federal court for an order directing the receiver to pay the taxes, or, in the event there is not enough money on 'hand to do so, that he be permitted to seize and sell so much of the personal property as will suffice to sa tisfy the same. ( See ,lIuthorities cited in last paragraph.)