Montana Attorney General Opinion 15-132

Opinion No. 132 Constitutional Law- Taxation- Agli- cultural Pt·oducts--Livestocl{. HELD: Section 1 of Chapter 191, Laws of 1933, vio~ates Sections 1 and 11 of Article XII of the Constitution and is invalid. l\farch 27, 1933. You have asked us whether or not in our opinion Section 1 of Chapter 191, Laws of 1933, is a valid enactment. It reads as follows: "As a basis for the imposition of taxes upon agricul- tural products in storage or held on the farm, and all Ih-estock actually held on feed for purposes of slaughter and sold and removed from the county on or before the fifteenth day of April of the year in which the tax levy is made, seven percentum (7%) of the true and full value shall be taken." I,ivestock actually held on feed for purposes of slaughter and so1<1 and re- moved from the county on or after the sixteenth of April; livestock actually held on feed for purposes of slaughter and sold on or before the fifteenth of April, but not removed from the county until after that day; Ih-estock actually held on feed for purposes of slnnghter nnd sold on or before the fifteenth, or on or after the sixteenth of April, but not removed or intended to he removed from the county; livestock grazed for purposes of slaughter nnd sold and removed from the county on or before the fifteenth or on or after the six- teent.h of April: lin~stock grazed for purposes of slaughter nnd sold on or before· the fifteen th or on or after the sixteenth of April, but not removed or intended to be remo\-ed from the coun- ty; livestock actually held on feed for purposes other than slaughter and sold and removed from the county on or be- fore the fifteenth ()r on or nfter the sixteenth of April; livestock actually held on feed for purposes other than slaughter a 11(1 sold on or before the fifteenth or on or after the sixteenth of April but not removed or intended to be removed from the connt~'; live- stock grazed for purposes other than slaughter and sold find removed from the county on or before the fifteenth or on or after the sixteenth of April, and livestock grazed for purposes oth- er than slaughter and sold on or be- fore the fifteenth 01' on or after the i'ixteenth of April of the year in which the tax levy is made, but not removed or intended to be removed from the county at all, and livestock retained for future (Usposition or domestic use do not come within its purview. The IH'o\'isions of Section 2000 Redsed Codes 1921, still apply so far as sueh livestock is concerned. Consequently, taxes must be le\'ied upon it not on the J'asis of seven per cent of its true and full value but on the basis of thirty- three and one-third per cent of its true and full value. 100 OPI~IOXS OF THE ATTOHXEY GEXERAL Sections 1 and 11 of Article XII of the Constitution are as follows: "Section 1. The necessary revenue for the support and maintenance of the state shall be provided by the leg- islative assembly, which shall levy a uniform rate of assessment and taxa- tion, and shall prescribe such regula- tions a:s shall secure a just Yaluation for taxation of all property, except that specially provided for in this article. The legislative assembly may also impose a license tax, both upon persons and upon corporations dOing business in the state." "Section 11. Taxes shall be levied and collected by general laws and for public purposes only. They shall be uniform Ul)()n the same class of sub- jects within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax". The command to the legislature then, as found in these sections, "is that it shall prescribe such uniform mode of assessment as shall secure a just ;-alu- a tion of all taxable property, that all taxes shall be leyied and collected by general laws and for public purposes only, and that they shall be uniform upon the same class of property within the territorial limits of the authority leyying the tax". Hilger v. Moore, 56 ~Iont. 146. Is there any justification in the Con- stitution for taxing livestock covered by the section in question and classi- fied as other livestock is classified un- der the provisions of Section 1999, Re- Yised Codes U)21 , differently from live- ~tock actually held on feed for pur- poses of slaughter and sold on or be- fore the fifteenth of April, but not re- moved from the county until after that day, or from livestock actually held on feed for purposes of slaughter and sold and removed from the county on or after the sixteenth of April, or from livestock actually held on feed for pur- poses of slaughter and sold on or be- fore the fifteenth or on or after the sixteenth of April, but not removed from the county, or from livestock ac- tually held on feed for purposes other than slaughter and sold and removed from the county on or before the fif- teeuth or on or after the sixteenth of April, or from livestock actually held on feed for purposes other than slaugh· tel' and sold on or before the fifteenth or on or after the sixteenth of April, but not remm'ed from the county, or, for that matter, from livestock in gen- eral? The answer must be in the nega- th·e. Can it he doubted that if the legislature required that taxes be ley- ied on "Ih'estock actua lly held on feed for purposes of slaughter and sold and removed from the' cGuntv on or before the fifteenth day of Ap;:i\ of the yea r in which the tax leyy is made" on a basis of forty, fifty or sixty per cent of its true and full Yalue, the owner thereof would have just cause for com- plaint and be entitled to relief in a court of law? The effect of it all, of course, is that the owner of livestock not within the statute must ptlY almost five times as much in the way of taxes leyied thereon as the owner of liYe- stock of equal yalue covered by the statute must pay. It is clear, then. that Section 1 of Chapter Ull, Laws of 1933. discliminates in favor of live- stock within its provisions and flouts that equality of tax'ation which the Constitution demands. HaYeS ,'. Smith. 58 Mont. 306; Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Sanders County, 66 Mont. 608; State ex reI. N. P. Ry. Co. v. Duncan, 68. ~Iont. 420; Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. v. Powell County, 76 Mont. 596; Hale y. County Treasurer, 82 Mont. 98: State ex reI. Conrad, etc., v. Mady, 83 Mont. 418; Ran l!~rand"co, etc., Y .• Tohnson. 291 Pac. 197; Voran Y. Wright, 281 Pac. 938; Col umbra Terminals Co. y. Koehl, 3 S. W. (2d) 1021; Woco Pep CO. Y. City of Mont:romery, 105 So. 214; He Harkness, 204 Pac. 911, 42 A. L. H. 399; 61 C. J. 101-204. 'What we have said about livestock fa "ored hy Section 1 of Chapter 191, IJa\\'s of 193;3, in the matter of taxa- tioll, applies with equal force to such agricultural products as are favored in the same way by the same section. We think the statute disobeys the plain mandate of the Constitution and for that reason is invalid and should not be followed.