Agenda - 06-05-2018 8-d - Refund Request – Sports Endeavors, Inc.

Browse Search

REDEVELOPMENT COM'N OF HIGH POINT v. Guilford County, 164 S.E.2d 476, 274... Page 3 of 6 16 "Unless a tax or assessment, or some part thereof, be illegal or invalid, or be levied or assessed for an illegal or unauthorized purpose, no injunction shall be granted by any court or judge to restrain the collection thereof in whole or in part, nor to restrain the sale of any property for the nonpayment thereof; * * *" (Emphasis ours) This statute and our case law recognize a distinction between an erroneous tax and an illegal or invalid tax. An illegal or invalid tax results when the taxing body seeks to impose a tax without authority, as in cases where it is asserted that the rate is unconstitutional, Perry v. Commissioners of Franklin County, 148 N.C. 521 ( /opinion /3927078/perry-v- commissioners/), 62 S.E. 608, or that the subject is exempt from taxation, Southern Assembly v. Palmer, 166 N.C. 75 (/ opinion /3918458 /southern - assembly- v- palmern, 82 S.E. 18 (/ opinion /3918458 /southern - assembly- v- palmern. Injunction will lie when the tax or assessment is itself invalid or illegal. Purnell v. Page, 133 N.C. 125 ( /opinion /3903502 /purnell -v- pagen, 45 S.E. 534 (/ o pin ion /3903502 / purnell-v- pager; Sherrod v. Dawson, 154 N.C. 525 ( /opinion /3925446 /sherrod -v- dawsonn, 70 S.E. 739 (/ opinion /3925446 /sherrod- v- dawsonn; Wynn v. Trustees of Charlotte Community College System, 255 N.C. 594 (/ opinion/ 1336914 /wynn -v- trustees -of- charlotte- community - college -sysn, 122 S.E.2d 404 (/ opinion /1336914/wynn -v- trustees -of- charlotte- community - college -sysn. Here, the equitable remedy of injunction is proper since appellant contends that the taxing body is without authority to impose the tax because of the constitutional exemption. In applying this constitutional exemption this Court for a period of years developed two divergent viewpoints: (1) that property held by the State or a municipality is exempt without regard to the purpose for which it was acquired and held. Town of Weaverville v. Hobbs, 212 N.C. 684, 194 S.E. 860; Town of Andrews v. Clay County, 200 N.C. 280, 156 S.E. 855. (2) In order for the exemption to apply to property acquired and held by the State or a municipality, the property must be held for public or governmental purposes. City of Winston -Salem v. Forsyth County, 217 N.C. 704 (/ opinion/ 3912618 / winston- salem -v- Forsyth - countyn, 9 S.E.2d 381 (/ opinion/ 3912618 / winston-s6lem-v- forsyth - countyn; Town of Warrenton v. Warren County, 215 N.C. 342 (/ opinion/ 3908493 /warrenton -v- warren - countyn, 2 S.E.2d 463 (/ opinion/ 3908493 /warrenton -v- warren - countyn; Wells v. Housing Authority, supra; Town of Benson v. Johnston County, 209 N.C. 751 (/ opinion/ 3921855 /benson -v- johnston - countyn, 185 S.E. 6 (/ opinion /3921855 /benson -v- johnston- countyn; Board of Financial Control v. Henderson County, 208 N.C. 569 (/ opinion/ 3903061 /board -of- financial - control -v- henderson- countyn, 181 S.E. 636 (/ opinion/ 3903061 / board -of- financial - control- v- h end erson- countyn, 101 A.L.R. 783; Atlantic & N. C. R. R. Co. v. Board of Commissioners, 75 N.C. 474 (/ opinion /3924240 /r- r- v- commissionersn. The decided current of authority follows, and we think correctly so, the view of the latter line of cases. We deem it necessary to briefly review these controlling decisions. In Atlantic & N. C. R. R. Co. v. Board of Commissioners, supra, the Court, in holding that the provisions of the North Carolina Constitution which provided that "property belonging to the State * * * shall be exempt from taxation" did not embrace the interest of the State in such enterprises as the operation of railroads, said: "The Capitol is not taxed because the State would be paying out money just to receive it back again, less the expenses of handling it. And if taxed for local purposes it would to that extent embarrass the State government. * * * * ** I "But where the State steps down from her sovereignty and embarks with individuals in business enterprises, the same considerations do not prevail. https: / /www.courtlistener.com/ opinion /I246924 /redevelopment- comn -of -high- point -v- guil... 5/18/2018