Judges: WRITTEN BY: Don Stenberg, Attorney General L. Steven Grasz, Deputy Attorney General
Filed Date: 5/11/1995
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
REQUESTED BY: M. Berri Balka, State Tax Commissioner
You have requested our opinion on several questions pertaining to the use of keno lottery proceeds to provide "tax relief for the community" under the definition of "community betterment purposes" in Neb. Rev. Stat. §
You state that the Village is considering adopting a resolution which would use its keno proceeds to provide "property tax relief". Under the proposed plan, property taxes would be assessed and paid by the Village's property owners. Following their payment of the tax, the property owners would submit their tax receipts to the Village Clerk as a claim to the Village. The Village then proposes to pay the owners for their claim, which would, in effect, reimburse them for the amount of property taxes paid. As we understand the proposal, the amount of taxes subject to claim and reimbursement would include not only property taxes levied for the Village, but also property taxes levied against property owners in the Village for other taxing jurisdictions (i.e., Lancaster County, the local public school district, or other political subdivisions). You state the Village is relying on the aforementioned portion of §
You have asked our opinion on several question relating to the propriety of the Village's proposal. First, you ask whether the Village's property tax "reimbursement" plan is consistent with the Legislature's intent in defining "community betterment purposes" to include the provision of "tax relief for the community" under §
For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that, while it is a close question, we cannot say the Village's "reimbursement" plan for property taxes paid by property owners of the Village is inconsistent with the definition of "community betterment purposes" allowing the use of lottery proceeds to provide "tax relief for the community." We also believe that the proposal does not contravene the recent Nebraska Supreme Court decision in Cityof Ralston v. Balka,
I. Community Betterment Purposes.
The Nebraska Constitution prohibits all games of chance and lotteries except as otherwise provided by law. Neb. Const. art.
The Act, of course, permits counties, cities, or villages to conduct lotteries, including the keno lottery conducted by the Village. The Legislature, as part of the Act, has defined the term "community betterment purposes" as follows:
Community betterment purposes shall mean (a) benefiting persons by enhancing their opportunity for educational advancement, by relieving or protecting them from disease, suffering, or distress, by contributing to their physical well-being, by assisting them in establishing themselves in life as worthy and useful citizens, by providing them with opportunities to contribute to the betterment of the community, or by increasing their comprehension of and devotion to the principles upon which this nation was founded, (b) initiating, performing, or fostering worthy public works or enabling or furthering the erection or maintenance of public structures, (c) lessening the burdens borne by government or voluntarily supporting, augmenting, or supplementing services which government would normally render to the people, or (d) providing tax relief for the community.
Neb. Rev. Stat. §
Your first three questions require an interpretation of the Legislature's intent in establishing "providing tax relief for the community" as a "community betterment purpose" for which lottery proceeds may be used. To determine the type of "tax relief" contemplated by the Legislature, it is necessary to resort to established rules of statutory interpretation.
A fundamental principle of statutory construction is to attempt to ascertain legislative intent and to give effect to that intent. County of Lancaster v. Maser,
"Relief" is defined, in part, as the "lightening of a burden, as of taxation, . . . ." Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary 1526 (2d ed. 1983). The common understanding of tax "relief" thus would include the "lightening" of the burden of taxation. Obviously, the Village's plan would certainly be consistent with such an interpretation, as reimbursing Village members for property taxes paid would surely have the effect of "lightening" their tax burden. The Legislature employed broad and unrestricted language in providing that "community betterment purposes" includes "providing tax relief for the community". We do not believe it would be appropriate for us to place a limitation on such language which would construe the Village's proposal to fall outside the plain and ordinary meaning of the language employed by the Legislature.
We have examined the legislative history of 1991 Neb. Laws, LB 427, which first established the definition of "community betterment purposes" under §
We have also reviewed the construction given this provision by the Department. Nebraska Department of Revenue Reg-35-601.021 provides that "community betterment purposes" includes "[p]roviding tax relief for the community, such as using fundsraised from county, city, or village lottery to fund any programsor needs which would normally be paid for by taxes imposed uponthe community." (emphasis added).
The interpretation of a statute given to it by an administrative agency to which the statute is directed is entitled to weight. Vulcraft, a Div. of Nucor Corp. v. Karnes,
The Department's regulation seems to contemplate that the provision of "tax relief for the community" under §
In addition, we note the Nebraska Supreme Court's recent decision in City of Ralston v. Balka,
[S]upplementing the purses for live thoroughbred racing in Nebraska clearly does not confer any direct and peculiar benefit to the entire community. To the contrary, only owners of Nebraska-bred horses stand to benefit from the implementation of L.B. 795, § 6, and any argument that such a lottery regulation will eventually trickle down to the general populace and better the community at large is at best tenuous. Such a `betterment' clearly is not shared by the entire community. As a result, L.B. 795, § 6, does not qualify for the `community betterment' exception to article III, § 24.
Id.
The Village's plan is not inconsistent with the Nebraska Supreme Court's interpretation of "community betterment purposes" under art. III, § 24, as set forth in City of Ralston. The Village's plan certainly would confer a "direct and peculiar benefit" upon property owners in the community, and, unlike the use of lottery proceeds under the statute at issue in City ofRalston, would benefit the "general populace" in that it does not exclude any members of the community who are property taxpayers. Because the Court did not address the statutory definition of "community betterment purposes" in §
II. Release, Discharge, or Commutation of Taxes.
Neb. Const. art.
the Legislature shall have no power to release or discharge any county, city, township, town, or district whatever, or the inhabitants thereof, or any corporation, or the property therein, from their or its proportionate share of taxes levied for state purposes, or due any municipal corporation, not shall commutation for such taxes be authorized in any form whatever; . . . .
In State ex rel. Meyer v. Story,
In addition to the constitutional prohibition against the Legislature enacting any law which would have the effect of releasing, discharging, or commuting taxes, the Legislature has enacted Neb. Rev. Stat. §
No county or township board, city council, or village trustees shall have the power to release, discharge, remit, or commute any portion of the taxes assessed or levied against any person or property within their respective jurisdictions for any reason whatever. . . . The provisions of this section shall not be construed to prevent the proper authority from refunding taxes paid, as provided in section
77-1735 , nor to interfere with the powers of any officers or board sitting as a board for the equalization of taxes.
While we believe it is a close question, we cannot conclude that the Village's proposal would have the effect of releasing or discharging property owners of their property tax obligations, either for taxes levied by the Village or property taxes levied for other governmental subdivisions. The prohibition in art. VIII, § 4, bars the Legislature from enacting any law having the effect of releasing, discharging, or commuting taxes. The Village's plan does not release or discharge a taxpayer from paying their property tax obligation; rather, it would operate only to reimburse taxpayers after they have satisfied their property tax obligation. While it could be argued this is an improper attempt to do indirectly that which the Constitution forbids directly, we cannot conclude that interpreting §
In addition, we do not believe the Village's proposal would run afoul of the prohibition in §
III. Conclusion.
In sum, we conclude that, while it is a close question, the Village's plan to use lottery proceeds to "reimburse" property taxes paid by property owners of the Village likely is permissible under the definition of "community betterment purposes" to include the provision of "tax relief for the community" under §
Very truly yours,
DON STENBERG Attorney General
L. Steven Grasz Deputy Attorney General
APPROVED BY:
Don Stenberg Attorney General
NC + Hybrids v. Growers Seed Ass'n ( 1985 )
State Ex Rel. Meyer v. Story ( 1962 )
Georgetowne Ltd. Partnership v. Geotechnical Services, Inc. ( 1988 )
McCaul v. American Savings Co. ( 1983 )
School Dist. of Minatare v. County of Scotts Bluff ( 1972 )
Beatrice Manor, Inc. v. Department of Health ( 1985 )
In RE BOUNDARIES OF McCOOK PUBLIC POWER DIST. ( 1984 )
County of Lancaster v. Maser ( 1987 )
City of Ralston v. Balka ( 1995 )
In Re Interest of Murray ( 1990 )
State Ex Rel. Spire v. Stodola ( 1988 )
ATS Mobile Telephone, Inc. v. Curtin Call Communications, ... ( 1975 )