Craig v. Southern Natural Gas Co.

8 So. 2d 230, 193 Miss. 76, 1942 Miss. LEXIS 94
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
DecidedMay 25, 1942
DocketNo. 35053.
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 8 So. 2d 230 (Craig v. Southern Natural Gas Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mississippi Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Craig v. Southern Natural Gas Co., 8 So. 2d 230, 193 Miss. 76, 1942 Miss. LEXIS 94 (Mich. 1942).

Opinion

Smith, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an action at law by the appellant to recover from the appellee, a Delaware corporation, privilege taxes *88 alleged to be due by it to tbe state for tbe years 1936 to 1940, inclusive, under Section 180, Chapter 20, Laws Ex. Sess. 1935, a demurrer to tbe declaration was sustained and tbe cause dismissed. Tbe demurrer challenged (1) tbe authority of tbe State Tax Collector to sue for tbe privilege tax imposed by this statute, and (2) tbe right of any one to sue therefor in tbe absence of an order by tbe Tax Commissioner setting forth tbe “units to be used in determining the tax due to be paid by tbe public utilities, ’ ’ required by Section 182 of tbe statute. If it appears from tbe appellant’s declaration that no such “findings, determination and classification” of tbe appellee’s pipe line has been made by tbe Tax Commissioner, tbe case while factually different from Craig v. Columbus & Greenville R. Co., 192 Miss. 461, 5 So. (2d) 681, is within and governed by tbe rule there applied, and tbe judgment of tbe court below must be affirmed on tbe second ground of tbe demurrer. We will, therefore, come at once to that ground of tbe demurrer.

Section 180, Chapter 20, Laws of Ex. Sess. of 1935, which deals with privilege taxes, imposes “upon each person engaging or continuing in this state in tbe business of operating’ a pipe line or transporting in or through this state oil, or natural or artificial gas, through pipes, or conduits, a tax, as follows:

“On each mile of pipe having a diameter of 20 inches or more . . . $50.00,” etc.

Tbe tax is payable to tbe Chairman of tbe State Tax Commission, designated in tbe statute, and hereinafter, as tbe “Tax Commissioner,” in December of each year, who, on receipt thereof, issues tbe applicant a license for conducting tbe business for tbe year following. Sections 181-183 1 impose on tbe Tax Commissioner tbe duty to *90 “ascertain and set forth, the units to be used in determining the tax due to be paid by” a person engaged in the business of operating a pipe line “and make such classification of the same as will clearly show the amount of tax to be paid by” him, and to “enter his finding's in a suitable book.”

The declaration alleges in substance that the appellee filed with the Tax Commissioner for each of the years here involved the statement required by Section 181. of the statute, showing the length and diameter of its pipe line. Each of these statements setting forth that “the information herewith supplied by the undersigned is submitted to the Tax Commissioner solely for statistical purposes and. is not to be treated as an admission of liability for the payment of the privilege tax on pipe lines provided for by Section 178 of House Bill No. 1137, chap. 120, being the privilege tax law of 1910, since the undersigned is advised and believes and takes the position that, because of the interstate character of its business, it is not liable for the payment of the tax.” The declaration then proceeds “that nevertheless during each of said years the said State Tax Commission and Tax Commissioner entered an order in its record of minute books to the effect that it could hot perform the said duties imposed upon it because of a restraining order theretofore issued against the State Tax Commission *91 in a suit in the Federal District Court of the Southern District of Mississippi, styled ‘State Tax Commission of Mississippi v. Interstate Natural Gas Company,’ and' being number 344 on the equity docket of said Court, which the said Tax Commission said applied to it and prevented it from so doing. That the defendant was not a party to said suit, and the facts therein concerning the liability of the Interstate Natural Gas Company were entirely different from the facts herein alleged.” Each of the orders here referred to set forth that “it appearing that certain other pipe line companies and telephone companies have heretofore secured from the Federal District Court an order restraining the State Tax Commission from taking any steps to enforce the collection of privilege taxes from the said companies, upon the grounds that they are engaged solely in interstate commerce, and that the said order applies to the commissioner, and that he cannot perform the duties imposed upon him by The Privilege Tax Law of 1934, Laws 1934, chap. 118, as amended, with respect to the said companies.

“It is further ordered and adjudged, that the matter of determining’ the units and the amount of the privilege taxes due by the said companies, and other companies or persons operating in a similar manner, or any other persons, firms or companies, be, and the same is hereby continued until the said order of the Federal District Court has been dismissed, modified, or set aside; or until it shall appear that the Commissioner may lawfully proceed to determine the said units and the amount of privilege taxes due, reserving all rights as to the adjudication of any facts and laws, and the liability of the said companies for privilege taxes. ’ ’

It thus appears that no orders have been here made by the Tax Commissioner in compliance with Section 182 of the statute by which the privilege tax due by this appellee, if any, can be computed.

But the appellant says that no such order was here *92 necessary in order for the maintainance of this suit for two reasons:

(1) The statements filed by the appellee disclosed the length and diameter of its pipe line, thereby rendering it unnecessary for the commissioner to make an order finding those facts.

The Tax Commissioner was not bound by the appellee’s admission as to the length and diameter of its pipe line. It was his duty to determine whether the appellee’s claim as to the length and diameter of its pipe line was correct and he had the right under Section 242 of the statute to require it4 ‘ to furnish such other and further information as in his opinion is necessary to ascertain the correct amount of tax due.” His determination, when set forth in an order after hearing and passing on objections thereto by the taxpayer, is final “except as to the right of such order or findings to be reviewed by a court of competent jurisdiction.” Sections 182 and 242 of the statute. Such is the method prescribed by the statute for ascertaining the amount of privilege tax due by a person engaged in the business of operating a pipe line, consequently it can be ascertained over the taxpayer’s objection in no other way. When, but not before, the amount of this tax has been so ascertained a suit may be brought to collect it under Section 268 of the statute in event it has not been paid.

(2) The appellant’s second reason in support of its claim that no such order was here necessary is that the declaration alleges that the State Tax Commission in assessing the appellee for ad valorem taxes in each of these years on the value of its pipe line set forth in its assessment the pipe’s length and diameter. The State Tax Commission has nothing to do with the collection of this privilege tax, that duty being imposed by the statute on its Chairman designated therein as the Tax Commissioner. A casual examination of the pertinent sections of the statute will so disclose.

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

Related

McArdle's Estate v. City of Jackson
61 So. 2d 400 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1952)
Bailey v. Emmich Bros.
37 So. 2d 797 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1948)
Craig v. Gulf, Mobile Ohio R. Co.
16 So. 2d 760 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1944)
Craig v. J.A. Jones Const. Co., Inc.
15 So. 2d 45 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1943)
Craig v. Stone
11 So. 2d 433 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1943)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
8 So. 2d 230, 193 Miss. 76, 1942 Miss. LEXIS 94, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/craig-v-southern-natural-gas-co-miss-1942.