Assessors of Haverhill v. New England Telephone & Telegraph Co.

124 N.E.2d 917, 332 Mass. 357, 1955 Mass. LEXIS 648
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedMarch 7, 1955
StatusPublished
Cited by21 cases

This text of 124 N.E.2d 917 (Assessors of Haverhill v. New England Telephone & Telegraph Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Assessors of Haverhill v. New England Telephone & Telegraph Co., 124 N.E.2d 917, 332 Mass. 357, 1955 Mass. LEXIS 648 (Mass. 1955).

Opinion

Qua, C.J.

The assessors appeal from a decision of the Appellate Tax Board abating a tax assessed for the year 1951 in the sum of $49,639.44 on the machinery, poles, wires and underground conduits, wires and pipes of the company located in Haverhill. The board ruled that the assessment was invalid.

At the time of the assessment it was provided by G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 59, § 39, as appearing in St. 1933, c. 254, § 36, and as amended by St. 1939, e. 451, § 22, 1 that local assessors should assess the machinery, poles, wires and underground conduits, wires and pipes of telephone and telegraph companies at a value determined by the commissioner of corporations and taxation and certified by him to the assessors, or in case of appeal by the assessors from the commissioner’s valuation, at the value determined by the Appellate Tax Board. Instead of complying with this section, the assessors used a valuation fixed by themselves which was $550,000 greater than that certified to them by the commissioner. They now contend not only that § 39 was unconstitutional but also that § 41, as appearing in St. 1933, c. 254, § 37, 2 which provided for returns by the companies to the com *359 missioner to enable him to make his valuations, and § 73, as appearing in St. 1933, c. 254, § 44, 1 which provided that a company aggrieved by the taxes assessed on it might apply to the commissioner for an abatement, were likewise unconstitutional.

These sections, or some of them, have been the subject of a series of decisions in recent years at the instance of the assessors of Springfield and of Haverhill. Commissioner of Corporations & Taxation v. Assessors of Springfield, 329 Mass. 419. Assessors of Springfield v. New England Telephone & Telegraph Co. 330 Mass. 198. Commissioner of Corporations & Taxation v. Assessors of Springfield, 330 Mass. 433. Commissioner of Corporations & Taxation v. Assessors of Haverhill, 330 Mass. 553. State Tax Commission v. Assessors of Haverhill, 331 Mass. 306. State Tax Commission v. Assessors of Springfield, 331 Mass. 677. State Tax Commission v. Assessors of Haverhill, 331 Mass. 685. In the case of Commissioner of Corporations & Taxation v. Assessors of Haverhill, 330 Mass. 553, at page 555, we said that the assessors’ attack upon the constitutionality of § 39 was “without merit.” Inasmuch, however, as the present attack is not confined to § 39 and appears to be pressed upon grounds different from those advanced in the case last cited we consider the arguments here addressed to us.

1. There is no violation of the requirement of Part II, c. 1, § 1, art. 4, of the Constitution of the Commonwealth that assessments, rates and taxes be proportional and reasonable. The value to be determined by the commissioner 2 under § 39 is the fair cash value of the property. This is implicit in § 39 and is made explicit by the reference to “fair cash value” in § 73. The basis of valuation is therefore the same as that upon which the assessors must act under G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 59, § 38, in determining the value of other property in the city. And of course the tax rate must be the same as that applied to other property. § 39. The only possible ground for the contention that the tax *360 assessed upon the company under the statutes in question is not proportional and reasonable is that the value may be finally determined by the commissioner 1 upon application for abatement rather than by the assessors or the Appellate Tax Board. But taxes are not rendered disproportionate or unreasonable merely because the values of different types of property may under the law be fixed by different officers whose judgments may differ as to value and as to the best method of determining it. There is no requirement that all valuations for tax purposes be made by a single officer or a single board. Cummings v. Merchants’ National Bank, 101 U. S. 153, 160-161. Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway v. Browning, 310 U. S. 362. See New York State v. Barker, 179 U. S. 279. There is nothing to show that there is in favor of telephone and telegraph companies “an intentional discrimination and one adopted as a practice.” (Chicago Great Western Railway v. Kendall, 266 U. S. 94, 99), even though the commissioner and the assessors may have entertained different views as to the best method of ascertaining value.

2. There is no denial of due process or of equal protection of the laws in the provision of § 73 granting an appeal to a company aggrieved by the commissioner’s 2 refusal of an abatement without granting any corresponding appeal to the assessors. Assessors are strictly public officers. Burr v. Boston, 208 Mass. 537, 541. Hobart v. Commissioner of Corporations & Taxation, 311 Mass. 341, 344. It is for the Legislature to say what rights shall be given to them in their official capacities and what rights denied.

3. There is no denial of equal protection of the laws in providing for the property of telephone and telegraph companies described in § 39 a method of assessment different from that provided for somewhat similar property of other owners, including such other public service companies as electric light and power companies, gas companies, railroads, and street railways. Sufficient ground for valid classifica *361 tion is found in the differing nature of the services rendered and of the means employed in rendering them. In recognition of inherent differences these types of public services have been from the beginning governed by differing statutory provisions. The reasons for adoption of the present method of valuing the machinery, poles, wires, conduits, and pipes of telephone and telegraph companies sufficiently appear in Assessors of Springfield v. New England Telephone & Telegraph Co. 330 Mass. 198, 201-203. If these reasons may also have some application to some of the other types of public service companies just mentioned, the Legislature may have felt that they apply in less degree than to telephone and telegraph companies, which we may now be certain extend into every city and town in the Commonwealth. The ramifications of particular gas and electric companies and even of railways may be less extensive.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco
95 P.3d 459 (California Supreme Court, 2004)
Mazzone v. Attorney General
432 Mass. 515 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2000)
State v. LOUISIANA RIVERBOAT GAMING COM'N & HORSESHOE ENTERT.
655 So. 2d 292 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1995)
Town of Brookline v. Governor
553 N.E.2d 1277 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1990)
Nashawena Trust v. Board of Assessors
501 N.E.2d 506 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1986)
Blaser v. Town Manager of Methuen
477 N.E.2d 417 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1985)
Attorney General v. School Committee of Essex
439 N.E.2d 770 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1982)
Iowa Department of Revenue v. Iowa State Board of Tax Review
267 N.W.2d 675 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1978)
Maryland Classified Employees Ass'n v. Anderson
380 A.2d 1032 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1977)
Wachusett Regional School District Committee v. Erickson
228 N.E.2d 62 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1967)
School Committee of Boston v. Board of Education
227 N.E.2d 729 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1967)
Board of Assessors v. State Tax Commission
221 N.E.2d 585 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1966)
Gardner v. Massachusetts Turnpike Authority
199 N.E.2d 186 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1964)
Fulton Foundation v. Department of Taxation
108 N.W.2d 312 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1961)
State ex rel. Ross v. Guion
161 N.E.2d 800 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1959)
Bank of New York v. Black
139 A.2d 393 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1958)
Kaplan v. Bowker
131 N.E.2d 372 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1956)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
124 N.E.2d 917, 332 Mass. 357, 1955 Mass. LEXIS 648, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/assessors-of-haverhill-v-new-england-telephone-telegraph-co-mass-1955.