Opinion No. Oag 5-79, (1979)
This text of 68 Op. Att'y Gen. 7 (Opinion No. Oag 5-79, (1979)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wisconsin Attorney General Reports primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
EDWIN M. WILKIE, Administrative Director of Courts SupremeCourt
You have asked how much suit tax should be collected by the clerk of court in small claims garnishment actions. The question arises because sec.
I am unable to construe the two statutes so as to avoid a conflict. I conclude that clerks of court should apply and enforce sec.
(1) Upon payment to the clerk of court of a clerk's fee of $2 and a suit tax of $2.50 in actions under s.
299.01 (4) (b) and a suit tax of $5 in other garnishment actions, the clerk shall issue a garnishee summons together with sufficient copies to the plaintiff or his attorney; the summons form may be in blank, but must carry the court seal.
Section 814.21 (1) (a), formerly sec. 271.21 until January 1, 1976, provides:
*Page 8(1) In each civil action, special proceeding, except probate proceedings, and cognovit judgment in the circuit or county court, excluding all matters brought into the probate branches, a suit tax of $11 shall be paid at the time the action is commenced, except that:
(a) In actions by small claim type procedure, the suit tax is $4.
The lower suit tax for small claims proceedings was first enacted by ch.
Chapter 299, Stats., also created by ch.
Because ch. 299 is the Legislature's most detailed and extensive statement on small claims actions, one could argue that the sec.
It is also reasonable to assume that the Legislature's true intent as to the amount of a suit tax will be stated in the statute headed "Suit tax" (sec. 814.21), rather than in a statute on garnishment procedure.
On the other hand, there is a strong line of cases in Wisconsin which hold that no tax can be imposed by implication, but must be authorized by clear and express language. Where ambiguity and doubt exist in a taxing statute, doubt must be resolved in favor of the person on whom the tax is sought to be imposed. See Wis.Dept. of Revenue v. Milwaukee Refining Corp.,
Applying this principle, I have first determined that secs.
Accordingly, sec.
BCL:MVB
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
68 Op. Att'y Gen. 7, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/opinion-no-oag-5-79-1979-wisag-1979.