Twin Hills Golf & Country Club, Inc. v. Town of Forest Park

2005 OK 71, 123 P.3d 5, 2005 Okla. LEXIS 79, 2005 WL 2649277
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedOctober 18, 2005
Docket102,265
StatusPublished
Cited by41 cases

This text of 2005 OK 71 (Twin Hills Golf & Country Club, Inc. v. Town of Forest Park) 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
Twin Hills Golf & Country Club, Inc. v. Town of Forest Park, 2005 OK 71, 123 P.3d 5, 2005 Okla. LEXIS 79, 2005 WL 2649277 (Okla. 2005).

Opinions

TAYLOR, J.

¶ 1 The first impression issue presented in this appeal is whether plaintiff/appellant is exempt from the duties to collect, report and remit municipal sales tax by the language in 11 O.S.2001, § 21-109(A) which provides that tracts of land in excess of forty acres annexed to a municipality and used for commercial purposes shall not be subject to municipal taxes. We conclude that 11 O.S.2001, § 21-109(A) does not shield a vendor from the obligations created by a municipal sales tax. We hold the district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant town of Forest Park, Oklahoma.

I.Facts and Proceedings Below

¶2 Plaintiff/appellant, Twin Hills Golf & County Club, Inc. (Twin Hills), owns a tract of land in excess of forty aces on which it operates a golf and country club. In the operation of the golf and country club, Twin Hills collects state sales tax on taxable transactions and reports and remits the state sales tax to the Oklahoma Tax Commission.

¶ 3 In August of 2003, defendant/appellee, the town of Forest Park, Oklahoma (Forest Park), annexed the tract of land owned and used by Twin Hills for the golf and country club. After the annexation, Twin Hills objected to the enforcement of Forest Park’s municipal sales tax in the operation of the golf and country club. Twin Hills claimed it is exempt from any obligation to collect, report and remit the municipal sales tax under 11 O.S.2001, § 21-109(A) which provides that tracts of land in excess of forty acres annexed to a municipality and used for commercial purposes shall not be subject to municipal taxes. Forest Park refused to recognize Twin Hills’ claimed exempt status.

¶ 4 In March of 2004, Twin Hills filed a declaratory judgment action in the district court in Oklahoma County against Forest Park. Twin Hills asked for a ruling that it is exempt from any duty or obligation under Forest Park’s taxation ordinances by 11 O.S. 2001, § 21-109. Forest Park responded that the statute is unconstitutional under State ex rel. Nesbitt v. Ford, 1967 OK 186, 434 P.2d 934. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The district court sustained Forest Park’s motion for summary judgment and overruled Twin Hills’ motion for summary judgment. Twin Hills appealed. We retained the appeal.

II.Standard of Review

¶ 5 We must determine the meaning of the language in 11 O.S.2001, § 21-109(A) which provides that certain annexed tracts of land “shall not be subject to municipal taxes.” This statutory construction issue is a question of law subject to an appellate court’s plenary, independent and nondeferential reexamination. Blitz U.S.A., Inc. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 2003 OK 50, ¶ 6, 75 P.3d 883, 885. We review the district court’s summary judgment de novo. Id.

III.The phrase “shall not be subject to municipal taxes” in the first sentence in 11 O.S.2001, § 21-109(A) means that annexed tracts of land in excess of forty acres and used for commercial purposes shall not be subject to municipal property taxes.

¶ 6 The primary goal of any inquiry into the meaning of statutory language is to ascertain the intent of the legislature. City of Durant v. Cicio, 2002 OK 52, ¶ 13, 50 P.3d 218, 220; World Publishing Co. v. Miller, 2001 OK 49, ¶ 7, 32 P.3d 829, 834. We presume the Oklahoma Legislature expressed its intent in the statutory language. Where the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, legislative intent and the meaning of the statute will be gleaned from [7]*7the face of the statute without resort to judicial rules of statutory construction. Id. Where legislative intent cannot be ascertained from the plain meaning of the statutory language, as when ambiguity or conflict with other statutes is shown to exist, judicial rules of statutory construction may be utilized. Id.

¶ 7 In this case, legislative intent can be ascertained from the plain meaning of the statutory language, and we need not resort to judicial rules of statutory construction. The statute, 11 O.S.2001, § 21-109, reads:

A. Tracts of land in excess of forty (40) acres which are annexed to a municipality and used for industrial or commercial purposes shall not be subject to municipal taxes. Tracts of annexed land in excess of five (5) acres which are used by persons engaged in farming or ranching and all farm animals and livestock, and all agricultural implements and machinery and household goods located on the land, shall not be subject to municipal taxes unless the municipality furnishes services to these tracts as are ordinarily furnished to municipal residents. No land which is used for agricultural purposes may be taken within the limits of a town and taxed at a greater rate than land which is adjacent to but outside the town limits.
B. On any annexation after July 1, 1998, the revenue and taxation ordinances of any municipality and the licensing and regulatory authority of any municipality shall not apply or extend to any military installation located on federal property which has been annexed in part or in whole by a municipality.

¶ 8 Without ambiguity, the above quoted subsection A concerns the taxation of real and personal property. Real and personal property in Oklahoma are subject to ad valo-rem taxation1 by school districts, cities, towns, counties, Okla. Const., art. 10, § 9, and other constitutionally authorized local jurisdictions, Okla. Const., art. 10, §§ 9A, et seq., but not by the State of Oklahoma.2 Real and personal property may also be subject to municipal and county assessments for local improvements, in amounts not based on the property value, when authorized by the Legislature. Okla. Const., art. 10, § 7. Further, real and personal property may be subject to specific taxation, such as a direct inheritance tax or a registration fee.3

¶ 9 Without ambiguity, the above quoted subsection A is a limitation on municipal taxation of certain annexed land (real property) and certain personal property located on the annexed land. Each sentence in the subsection plainly prohibits the levy of property taxes for municipal purposes upon specifically identified annexed property. The first sentence prohibits municipal taxation of annexed tracts of land in excess of forty acres used for commercial or industrial purposes. The second sentence prohibits municipal taxation of 1) annexed tracts of land in excess of five acres used by persons engaged in farming or ranching and 2) agricultural and household personal property located on such annexed land, unless the municipality furnishes services to the annexed land. The third and final sentence in the subsection prohibits taxing of annexed land used for agricultural purposes at a rate higher than land adjacent to, but outside of, the municipality. The essence of the first sentence of the statute, reduced to its simplest form, is [8]*8that “[t]racts ... shall not be subject to municipal taxes.”

¶ 10 The legislative intent of the unambiguous language in subsection A of § 21-109 is obvious. The Legislature intended to discourage municipalities from annexing large tracts of land used primarily for agricultural and commercial or industrial purposes in order to increase the revenue from property taxes. To accomplish this legislative goal, § 21-109(A) protects property.

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

Related

STITT V. DRUMMOND
2025 OK 82 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2025)
Sally F Bentley
W.D. Oklahoma, 2020
LOVEN v. CHURCH MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.
2019 OK 68 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2019)
Compsource Mut. Ins. Co. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission
435 P.3d 90 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2018)
HALL v. GALMOR
2018 OK 59 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2018)
Commonwealth v. Interstate Gas Supply, Inc.
554 S.W.3d 831 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2018)
Shaffer v. City of Muskogee Merit System Board
2016 OK CIV APP 64 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 2016)
SHAFFER v. CITY OF MUSKOGEE MERIT SYSTEM BD.
2016 OK CIV APP 64 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 2016)
NIX v. FIRST STAFFING GROUP USA
2017 OK CIV APP 8 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 2016)
ROUSE v. OKLAHOMA MERIT PROTECTION COMMISSION
2015 OK 7 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2015)
EDWARDS v. CITY OF SALLISAW
2014 OK 86 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2014)
Marriage of Dilbeck v. Dilbeck
2010 OK CIV APP 142 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 2010)
Bunch v. TERPENNING
2009 OK CIV APP 106 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2005 OK 71, 123 P.3d 5, 2005 Okla. LEXIS 79, 2005 WL 2649277, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/twin-hills-golf-country-club-inc-v-town-of-forest-park-okla-2005.