holding that the statute at issue imposed a "tax" because it mandated that grain sorghum processors collect fees from producers for every .5 ton of grain produced
How later courts described this case
- holding that the statute at issue imposed a "tax" because it mandated that grain sorghum processors collect fees from producers for every .5 ton of grain produced
- finding that an occupation tax is “a form of excise tax imposed upon a person [or entity] for the privilege of carrying on a business, trade or occupation”
- concluding that government charge on businesses that produce agricultural commodity was occupation tax rather than fee
- noting that party can challenge constitutionality of occupation tax on basis that tax fails to allocate 25% of revenue to public schools
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
DANIEL, Justice
(dissenting).
I would hold that the statute in question, as explained in paragraphs two through four of the majority opinion, provides for an assessment (as distinguished from a tax) voluntarily levied by the producers of the commodity “upon themselves” for their own benefit, and that its essential nature as a voluntary assessment was not changed by the amendment providing for a system of initial mandatory payment of assessments so long as prompt refunds are available to those who do not desire to participate in supporting the program. Accordingly, I disagree with the majority opinion and respectfully dissent.