City of Oklahoma City v. State

1990 OK 28, 789 P.2d 1300, 1990 Okla. LEXIS 28, 1990 WL 32859
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedMarch 27, 1990
DocketNo. 67843
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 1990 OK 28 (City of Oklahoma City v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
City of Oklahoma City v. State, 1990 OK 28, 789 P.2d 1300, 1990 Okla. LEXIS 28, 1990 WL 32859 (Okla. 1990).

Opinions

KAUGER, Justice.

The issues presented are: 1) whether a municipality which contracts with the Oklahoma Tax Commission for the collection of municipal taxes under the authority of 68 O.S.Supp.1986 § 27021 is entitled to interest earned by taxes deposited in the State Treasury; and 2) if the municipality is entitled to investment interest, [1302]*1302whether it may recover interest deposited to the state’s general revenue fund.2 In accordance with our pronouncement in City of Oklahoma City v. Oklahoma Tax Comm’n, 789 P.2d 1287 (Okla.1990), we find that: 1) the interest earned on municipal sales tax revenues is an accretion or increment to the principal tax. Pursuant to the Okla. Const. art. 10, § 19,3 the total i.e., principal and interest, must be expended for the purpose levied; and 2) because the fund representing interest earned on the investment of the municipal sales taxes has been appropriated, it is not recoverable.4

We do not agree with the Court of Appeals characterization of the Tax [1303]*1303Commission as a “vendor.” This appellation is not supported by 68 O.S.Supp.1986 § 2702 which refers to a “collecting vendor” and a “vendor” who fails to remit taxes collected from the consumer. Such a vendor is subject to the charge of embezzlement. Because “vendor” is not defined within the statute, it is given its plain and ordinary meaning.5 Vendor ordinarily means one who sells.6 It is clear from the plain meaning of the word “vendor” in § 2702 that it refers to the merchant who collects the tax from the consumer. In some instances, when money enters the state treasury to be held or paid over according to law, it is held in trust. However, when the Legislature referred to a trustee in § 2702, the language used, “as trustee, the collecting vendor,” is clear. The vendor is deemed to be holding the taxes collected from the consumer in trust for the municipality.7

In the companion case, City of Oklahoma City v. Oklahoma Tax Comm’n, 789 P.2d 1287 (Okla.1990), also decided today, the Tax Commission asserted that such a holding would “strike at the heart of the State’s fiscal integrity,” and that if the City has a valid claim to interest as an accretion to principal, it is against the State Treasurer. This argument is unpersuasive. Our holding is precisely the position the Legislature recently embraced by amending 68 O.S.Supp.1986 § 2702,8 and its enactment of a new law providing for the establishment of “sales tax remitting accounts.” 9 The Legislature amended [1304]*1304§ 2702 effective November 1, 1989. The amended statute provides for all sales taxes, including penalties and interest, collected on behalf of a municipality to be deposited in a sales tax remitting account. House Bill 1330, codified as 68 O.S.Supp.1989 § 1373, provides for the creation of the sales tax remitting account. Section 4 of § 1373 now provides for the distribution of the proportionate amount of interest earned to municipalities on a monthly basis.

The result in this cause need not affect the State’s fiscal integrity. Absent a contract executed in accordance with 68 O.S. Supp.1986 § 2702, the revenues from municipal taxes would never be deposited in the state treasury; and there would be no dispute over entitlement to the interest earned. It would belong to the municipality investing the tax. At the end of any contract term, Oklahoma City or any other municipality could elect not to contract for these services. The argument that the state’s fiscal health depends upon an appropriation of the interest is unconvincing.

Adoption of this holding need not disrupt the state treasury’s machinery. The machinery to set up an individual account for the deposit of municipal tax revenues existed before the Legislature’s intervention. Title 62 O.S.Supp.1989 § 7.2 provides for a Special Agency Account Board with the authority to approve the establishment of agency special accounts in the official depository of the state treasury. Such an account could be utilized to segregate municipal tax monies entering the state system. Interest on these accounts could then be paid to the appropriate municipality as part of the monthly disbursal.10

All monies representing interest earned from the investment of municipal sales taxes have been appropriated. There is no fund from which the interest earned can be recovered. Therefore, although the cause is reversed, there is no remedial action which could be taken on remand.

CERTIORARI GRANTED; OPINION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS VACATED; REVERSED.

HODGES, LAVENDER, DOOLIN and SUMMERS, JJ., concur. HARGRAVE, C.J., OPALA, V.C.J., and SIMMS, J., dissent.

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

Related

City of Oklahoma City v. Oklahoma Tax Commission
789 P.2d 1287 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1990 OK 28, 789 P.2d 1300, 1990 Okla. LEXIS 28, 1990 WL 32859, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-oklahoma-city-v-state-okla-1990.