State v. Dixie Contractors, Inc.

129 So. 2d 386, 240 Miss. 793, 1961 Miss. LEXIS 512
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
DecidedApril 24, 1961
DocketNo. 41831
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 129 So. 2d 386 (State v. Dixie Contractors, Inc.) 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
State v. Dixie Contractors, Inc., 129 So. 2d 386, 240 Miss. 793, 1961 Miss. LEXIS 512 (Mich. 1961).

Opinion

McElroy, J.

This is an appeal from the Circuit Court of DeSoto County holding that the Dixie Contractors, Inc., was not subject to taxation on certain personal property in [797]*797DeSoto County, Mississippi. The facts were presented to the court by stipulation and a jury was waived. The stipulation is, in part, as follows:

“This case is submitted to the Court without a jury for decision in term time or in vacation npon the following stipulated facts, to-wit:

“(1) Dixie Contractors, Inc., defendant, hereinafter called Dixie, is a road contractor with headquarters at 2965 South Third Street, Memphis, Tennessee, where it maintains its office.

“(2) In 1957 one J. B. Michael, as prime contractor, secured a contract for the construction of a section of Highway 55 located in the Second District of DeSoto County, Mississippi, and officially designated as Project 1-091-4(7) consisting of the clearing, dirt work and concrete work on a section of said highway, 4 - 3/10 miles in length.

“(4) That in August and October 1957 Dixie moved onto the job site various items of equipment for the purpose of use in performing the work consisting of two motor patrols, four DW-20, two DW-21, one D-6 tractor, one D-7 tractor, one D-8 tractor, one D-9 tractor, one sheepfoot roller, and three scrapers. Approximately two-thirds of said equipment was moved onto the job in August 1957 and the remaining one-third in October 1957. During the course of the work by Dixie, it also used in the project a No. 205 Koehring drag line, but this item was not acquired or placed on the job until May 1958.

“ (5) The said equipment was used on the job regularly as the weather and its condition of repair permitted from the time of its arrival until removal hereinafter set forth. The equipment was not purchased especially for the above mentioned projects, but had theretofore been used on several projects in different parts of the State of Mississippi and adjoining states.

[798]*798“(6) On December 20, 1957, the said job was shut down by the project engineer on account of bad weather, and all of the above mentioned equipment (except No. 205 Koehring drag line) was moved by Dixie into the Taylor Machine Shop, Memphis, Shelby County, Tennessee, where it was repaired at a cost of approximately $6,000.00, and Dixie began moving the equipment back into DeSoto County for further use on said road project on January 2, 1958, and the moving continued until all of the said equipment was back on the job. After said equipment was returned to the job after January 1,1958, Dixie continued to use the equipment as needed to perform the road work.

“(7) The equipment, excluding the No. 205 Koehring drag line, left the road project and DeSoto County in April 1958, and after which time other finishing equipment was brought in to complete the finishing work, and the work was finally completed on or about December 9, 1958.

“ (8) Dixie does not have and has never had its office or any permanent place of business in DeSoto County, Mississippi, and did not have any such office or place of business in 1957 or 1958, but its office and headquarters as aforesaid are in Memphis, Tennessee.

“(9) The only issue presented in this cause and the only issue submitted for decision is whether the equipment as to which assessment has been made is subject to assessment and taxation.”

The court held that “the equipment in question had not acquired a permanent situs in the State of Mississippi on January 1, 1958.

“Since this equipment was not physically present in DeSoto County on January 1, 1958, under pertinent statutes and Supreme Court decisions construing such statutes the equipment was not subject to taxation in DeSoto County. Accordingly, the Declaration must be dismissed with prejudice.”

[799]*799The assessment was made under Sec. 9747, Code of 1942, as amended in 1956, which provides as follows:

“Real property shall he assessed in the county, municipality and district where situated; and all tangible personal property shall he assessed in the county, municipality or district in which the same may be on the day the said tax lien takes effect, and the list thereof may he rendered by an agent of the owner. Provided, that where tangible personal property is temporarily removed from the taxing jurisdiction before the day on which the tax lien takes effect, said tax lien shall take effect in such jurisdiction as though said property were not removed.

“All property subject to taxation not above mentioned shall he assessed in the county, municipality and district where the owner resides, and this shall include poll taxes.

“Provided, however, that all persons, firms and corporations doing contracting work for drainage districts, for road districts, levee districts, bridge building or any other kind of contracting work, shall have all their personal property used in carrying out such contracts assessed in the county and district where such property is being used on the first day of January of each year.”

The “law day” or lien dates are fixed by statute. Sec. 9744 specifies the law day or lien date to be the first day of January of each year. It is here provided that “all taxes assessed shall he a lien upon and hind the property assessed, from the first day of January of the year in which the assessment shall he made.”

Section 9760, Code of 1942, deals with Corporations and provides that “its land and tangible personal property shall be assessed and taxed where situated on the first day of January of the year.”

In passing on statutory construction, the statutes are to be construed liberally in favor of the taxpayer and strictly against the taxing power and all doubts are to [800]*800be resolved in favor of the taxpayer. The power to tax must be clear beyond doubt and, of course, cannot be implied.

In Craig, State Tax Collector v. Walker, 191 Miss. 424, 2 So. 2d 806, the Court, in denying the right of a municipality to levy a tax on transient vendors, said of the tax statute: “ * * * candor must compel us to say that we cannot confidently determine what was meant, and we, therefore, resolve the doubt in favor of the taxpayer —taxation is never to be allowed under a statute of doubtful interpretation. Pan-American Petroleum Corp. v. Miller, 154 Miss. 565, 122 So. 393, and the numerous cases cited therein.” See also A. H. Stone v. Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co., 193 Miss. 294, 8 So. 2d 228; Chickasaw County v. G. M. & O. R. Co., 195 Miss. 754, 15 So. 2d 348; Stone v. M. L. Virden Lumber Co., Inc., 205 Miss. 841, 39 So. 2d 498 and Stone v. General Box Co., 212 Miss. 60, 53 So. 2d 85.

In passing on Sec. 9747, Code of 1942, before its amendment in 1956, in Anderson Bros. Corp. v. Board of Supervisors of Washington County, 221 Miss. 361, 73 So. 2d 105, the Court held as follows:

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

Related

State Tax Commission v. Overstreet Investment Co.
194 So. 2d 236 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
129 So. 2d 386, 240 Miss. 793, 1961 Miss. LEXIS 512, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-dixie-contractors-inc-miss-1961.