explaining that two provisions are only irreconcilable if they cannot operate concurrently
How later courts described this case
- explaining that two provisions are only irreconcilable if they cannot operate concurrently
- referencing the “traditionally accepted importance of the tax collection process to the perpetuation and the continuing vitality of the government”
- “[A] showing] that the two statutory schemes are different and may be overlapping ... does not amount to irreconcilability under Pennsylvania law.”
- “[A] show[ing] that the two statutory schemes are different and may be overlapping I does not amount to irreconcilability under Pennsylvania law.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ROBERTS, Justice,
concurring.
I agree with the majority that appellant Cedarbrook is not entitled to equitable relief. I reach this conclusion, however, for entirely different reasons. Cedarbrook had available and took full advantage of the very opportunity to be heard it alleges now, in this proceeding, does not exist. Cedar-brook’s constitutional challenge to Section 19 of The Local Tax Collection Law of 1945 1 is, therefore, without merit. Further, on this record, equitable principles preclude the grant of injunctive relief Cedarbrook seeks.
Cedarbrook admits that it received timely notice of its 1977 real estate assessments and 1977 tax obligations of nearly $2,000,000. Pursuant to the Act of May 22, 1933, 2 Cedarbrook appealed its 1977 assessment to the Montgomery County Board of Assessment in August, 1976. The Board rejected Cedarbrook’s claim, and Cedarbrook lodged an appeal from that ruling. Pursuant to Section 518.1 of The General County Assessment Law, 3 a trial de novo was held in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, and Cedarbrook’s claims were again rejected. After the Board’s review and rejection of Cedarbrook’s request for relief, appellees, local taxing bodies, notified Cedarbrook of their intention to notify Cedarbrook’s tenants concerning rents due, pursuant to the provisions of Section 19 of The Local Tax Collection Law.
Although Section 5020-518.1 of The General County Assessment Law specifically provides “[t]hat the appeal shall not prevent the collection of taxes complained of, but in case the same shall be reduced, then the excess shall be returned to the person or persons who shall have paid the same,” Cedarbrook deliberately withheld payment of its 1977 taxes. *461 Instead Cedarbrook sought to postpone payment of its 1977 taxes by withholding payments and seeking an injunction against the taxing bodies’ recourse to enforcement procedures for the collection of delinquent tax obligations in accordance with The Act of 1945.
Since Section 5020-518.1 of The General County Assessment Law provides taxpayers ample opportunity to be heard on their objections both to assessments and taxes before there can be any recourse to the remedy provided in 72 P.S. § 5511.19 for the collection of delinquent taxes, Cedarbrook’s constitutional claim is misguided and there is no need to address it. 4 Under any analysis of due process rights, this statutory scheme provides all taxpayers, individual and corporate, full opportunity to be heard.
Cedarbrook’s delaying posture and the extraordinary supersedeas of enforcement proceedings granted Cedarbrook by a majority of this Court on November 22, 1977, 5 after Commonwealth Court refused to stay appellees collection of delinquent taxes and before any decision in Commonwealth Court or a fortiori, a petition seeking allowance of appeal had been filed, required appellees to meet their governmental obligations with funds borrowed on the open market. Indeed, Cedarbrook’s failure to pay its taxes has had a substantial adverse financial impact on appellees and the taxpayers. Cedarbrook’s taxable real estate holdings comprise nearly ten per cent of appellees’ tax base. 6 Equitable principles require that those who seek the protection of the Chancellor must themselves act in good faith. In light of *462 Cedarbrook’s deliberate decision to disregard the express notice in The General County Assessment Law that the taking of an appeal to the court of common pleas in no way stays appellant’s tax obligations, it must be concluded that Cedarbrook is estopped from obtaining injunctive relief, and is otherwise precluded from further delaying appellees’ prompt collection of delinquent taxes.
The trial court in full and complete accord with the applicable legal and equitable principles and in the exercise of its sound discretion properly denied the injunctive relief Cedarbrook requested. To have granted that relief would have constituted a flagrant abuse of discretion and error of law.
The record clearly demonstrates that all costs of these proceedings should be imposed upon Cedarbrook.
. Act of May 25, 1945, P.L. 1050, 72 P.S. § 5511.19.
. Act of May 22, 1933, P.L. 853, art. V, § 517, 72 P.S. § 5020-517.
. 72 P.S. § 5020-518.1.
. 72 P.S. § 5020-517 requires appeals before the Board of Assessment be heard before the payment of any tax and 72 P.S. § 5511.19 is not available until taxes are delinquent. Thus, the law provides for an opportunity for a full hearing before taxes become delinquent.
. This writer and former Justice Packel dissented from the majority’s grant of the stay.
. Cedarbrook’s tenants, by a provision of their leases, are responsible for taxes as well as rents, and have already paid to Cedarbrook the taxes Cedarbrook continues to withhold from the taxing bodies. It should be noted, in addition, that according to appellees’ brief, after Cedarbrook withheld its taxes, authorities were forced to raise taxes by 10 mills.