“We will affirm the trial court if it reached the right result, even though it may have announced the wrong reason.”
How later courts described this case
- “We will affirm the trial court if it reached the right result, even though it may have announced the wrong reason.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Donald L. Corbin, Justice, dissenting. I would reverse under our Arkansas Constitution art. 16, § 5. We have two cases, White River Lumber Co. v. State, 175 Ark. 956 , 2 S.W.2d 25 (1928) and State ex rel. v. Meek, 127 Ark. 349 , 192 S.W. 202 (1917), that contain strong language regarding the “uniformity” requirement of state assessments. This court has stated that the “paramount command of the [state] Constitution [is] that the valuation must be equal and uniform throughout the State.” Meek, supra, at 354 , 192 S.W. at 204 . Consequently, this court has refused to compel county assessors to raise taxes, even to conform to state guidelines, when the county’s tax valuation would then be greater than the other counties in the state. Id. “It is true the Constitution provides that all property subject to taxation shall be taxed according to its value, but this is done when the valuation is equalized with other property of the same kind in the county.” Id. at 353 , 192 S.W. at 204 . The court’s reasoning was summarized in the Meek opinion as follows:
We are of the opinion that the answer of the defendants is a sufficient one and that they are compelled by the plain mandate of the Constitution to assess property in the county in conformity with valuations placed on such property in other counties, regardless of the fact that it calls for an assessment at less than full value. Any other view of the matter would work an injustice to the taxpayers of that particular county and that, too, in manifest violation of the constitutional guaranty. [Emphasis added.]
Id. at 357 , 192 S.W. at 205 .
The corollary to the holding in Meek is that an individual taxpayer, whose property valuation is based on a higher percentage of his property value, is entitled to a reduction of his assessment so as to conform to the valuations placed upon other similar property. In fact, this court has held as much in Drew County Timber Co. v. Board of Equalization, 124 Ark. 569 , 187 S.W. 942 (1916) and Ex Parte Fort Smith & Van Buren Bridge Co., 62 Ark. 461 , 36 S.W. 1060 (1896).
In this case, .1 believe that appellant presented sufficient proof to establish that his assessment was out of line with the assessments of other car dealers throughout the state. James Metzer, author of Sales Tax and Automobile Sales in Arkansas, testified that county tax assessors continue to rely predominately on voluntary renditions to evaluate business inventory. While the Assessment Coordination Division has implemented new valuation methods in the last several years, Metzer testified that the current average valuation of business inventory was approximately fifty percent of the inventory’s market value.
Appellant also presented the testimonies of the tax assessors from Pulaski, Johnson, Logan, Faulkner, Conway, Pope, and Washington counties. These counties represent a cross-section of the state, and the testimonies of these assessors support appellant’s argument that he was assessed unfairly. The county assessors testified that they continued to rely on voluntary renditions for assessing the market value of inventory, and several assessors testified that they did not believe that these voluntary renditions reflected 100% of the inventories’ fair market values.
American Heritage Dictionary defines “uniform” as “always the same; unvarying — without fluctuation or variation; consistent; being the same as another or other. “Equal” is defined as “being the same or identical to in value.”
The majority contends that appellant did not make its case. I disagree. The trial judge was convinced that Summers made a case for a lack of uniform tax assessments in other counties in the state but found that the assessment was equal and uniform for the taxpayers of Yell County. I do not fault the assessor of Yell County. He should be lauded for doing a very difficult and thankless task. I would reverse and remand this case.