# State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Daxon

> Supreme Court of Oklahoma · February 26, 1980 · 607 P.2d 683

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9549203

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of Oklahoma Ex Rel. OKLAHOMA TAX COMMISSION, Petitioner. v. Tom DAXON, State Auditor and Inspector, Respondent
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** February 26, 1980
- **Citations:** 607 P.2d 683; 1980 OK 28; 1980 Okla. LEXIS 281
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Barnes
- **Judges:** Hargrave, Lavender, Williams, Simms, Doolin, Irwin, Hodges, Barnes, Opala
- **Cited by:** 11 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9549203

## Opinion text

BARNES, Justice,
specially concurring.
I concur in the opinion expressed by the majority opinion, but I believe that in addition to the question of whether or not the State Auditor and Inspector is permitted to examine the books and records of the Oklahoma Tax Commission, we are also confronted with a question regarding the type of audit which the Auditor and Inspector is permitted to conduct.
As the majority opinion notes, the Auditor and Inspector states that the intended purpose of his examination of the records is to audit the Tax Commission and correct, if need be, the “conduct of the tax collectors”. I agree with Mr. Justice Opala that the audit authorized by our statutes was intended to permit the Auditor and Inspector to examine individual tax returns for the sole purpose of extracting therefrom the data necessary to verify the Commission’s records of collections and payments. These items are:
(1) The amount of the tax declared by an individual taxpayer;
(2) The amount of the tax prepaid; and
(3) The amount of the tax remitted with the return, or the amount of refund claimed to be due.
Armed with this information, the Auditor may then determine whether the funds claimed due were correctly paid and collected and whether refunds claimed were properly handled. In short, I believe that the identity of the taxpayer is relevant to the Auditor’s duty for the sole purpose of tying the necessary figures to a particular return. The Auditor’s duties do not, however, permit him to examine a return to determine whether the form was properly filled out, or whether the deductions were legitimate, and the like. Those determinations are within the purview of the Commission, and not of the Auditor. The Auditor’s examination of the return is for a limited purpose only, and I concur specially today in order to emphasize this point.
I am authorized to state that IRWIN, J., concurs with the views expressed herein.
HODGES, Justice,
specially concurring.
In my opinion, the question presented is not the type of audit (performance or financial) required to be performed by the State Auditor and Inspector, nor does the majority opinion address this issue. Rather, the question presented is:
Does the State Auditor and Inspector have the authority to examine records and files deemed by the Oklahoma Tax Commission to be confidential and privileged?
The majority opinion answers this question in the affirmative. This is the extent and scope of the majority opinion to which I concur.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9549203. Public record. Not legal advice.