Montana Attorney General Opinion 15-84

Opinion No. 84 County Treasurers-Fees for Overtime. HELD: A county treasurer is not permitted to charge fee for furnishing information regarding taxes, even though he works overtime. February 23, 1933. You ha ,·e submitted the following questions: "Ma)' a county treasurer in the state of Montana legally charge a fee for furnisning information to a resident taxpayer as to whether or not the taxes on certain property be paid? In case of refusal to pay such fee, may a county treasurer refu.~e to furnish information relating to the tax rec- ords?" There is no Montana statute which authorized a county treasurer to charge OPIi\"IOXS 01" THE AYfORXEY Gl~XERAL 69 a fee for furnishing information to a person inquiring about taxes on prop- erty in which he is interestl'd. Fees are only collectable when expressly au- thori7-ed bv law and an officer demand- ing fees e'ither from the public or the state or other go\'ernmental bodies must point to a particular statute au- thol"izing them. (46 C. J.·1017, Section 244) . Section 2160, It. C. )1. 1021, as amended by Chapter 96, Laws of H)23 , makes it the duty of the county treas- urer to mail notices to taxpayers show- ing the amount of taxes for the cur- rent year. The c-ounty treasurer has charge of the books and records which show the amount of taxes due, interest and penalty and the amount of the cur- rent taxes on all taxable property in the county. It is his duty to receive and collect tax money. Only from the county treasurer can taxpayers or per- sons interested learn the true status of any property in regard to delinquent and current taxes. It is therefore the duty of the county treasurer to furnish this information which is disclosed by his records, when required. Since he is not entitled to a fee, none lun'ing heen prm'ided hy statute, he cannot re- fuse to furnish the information because no fee is paid. 'I.'he salary paid to him is his compensation for this service. It is not the policy of the law that an of- ficial should use his official position for the purpose of private gain. You state "there is never an argu- lIlent with the treasurers in furnishing a II -the desired information to the in- dividual taxpayer free of charge rela- th'e to taxes, but when mortgage com- panies -send in large lists every few months, which may require a day or more to compile, the treasurers usually make up the lists after hours as their official duties will not permit time for compiling these lists during regular hours, and the parties desiring the in- formation usually are willing to pay the treasurer for his serviCes, with the pay retained by the treasurer for his own use." If it is the duty of the county treas- urer to furnish this information to the indh'idual taxpayer free of charge, it is likewise his duty to furnish it to corporations free of charge. 'fhere should be no difference or distinction between small and large taxpayers, be- tween indh'iduals, corporations, "mort- gage companies", or an)'one else. It is his duty to sen'e them all alike. If the county treasurer is too busy dur- ing regular office hours to' discharge all of his duties, he cannot make a charge for performing hi~ official dut- ies after regular office hours. To per- mit a public officer to collect a fee where none is allowed by statute and to retain it. in addition to his salary. al'l a condition to the performance of hil'l official duty on -the theory that he wai'l working overtime, would be counte- nancing and encouraging official cor- ruption and certainl.,' contrar~' to pub- lic policy. The fact that large corporations are willing to pa~' in order to obtain eith(']" a service to which they are legally en- titled, or a special service to which thev are not entitled. is obnoxious on the' ground tha t it tends towards fav- orItism; it may lead to a species of tipping in order to obtain a better or l'lpeedier service. Odious as such prac- tice may he elsewhere, it should never be tolerated or permitted in public of- ficers. If the payment of a special fee to an officer is for the purpose of obtaining the ordinary service he is, hy statute, obliged to render. it is un- necessary: if the payment is for the purpose of obtaining a special sen-ice or prililege, it should not be tolerated. Tn either case it "encourages official corruption" and is contrary to puhlic policy. Mechem's Public Offices lind Officers, Sections 881 and 374: Throop on Public Officers, Sections 478 and 481: McQuillin. Municipal Corpora- tions. Second FJdition. Section 544: Evanl'l v. City of Trenton, 24 N. J. L. 764. 767; City of Indianapolis Y. Lam- kin, (Ind.) 112 N. H. 833: Tyrell v. Mayor, etc., of City of New York, 53 X. E. 1111: Crosby Connty Cattle Co .. v. McDermott, 281 S. "'. 293: Frazier Y. Dundy Connt~' (Xeh.) 213 N. W. 271; l!~urnia ,'. Grays Harbor County, (Wash.) 291 Pac. 1111: Goldstein v. BerQ'. 251 N. Y. S. 47; 232 App. Dil". 583; 40 C. J. 1017, Section 242. For the foregoing reasons, it is our opinion that both questions which yon haye submitted should be answered in the negative.