CopyCited 14 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 27, 1994 | 444 S.E.2d 771, 94 Fulton County D. Rep. 2137
Carley, Justice.
OCGA §
48-5-18 (a) provides that:
Except as otherwise provided in this Code section, each tax commissioner and tax receiver shall open his books for the return of taxes on January 1 and shall close his books on April 1 of each year.
(Emphasis supplied.) OCGA §
48-5-18 (e) “otherwise provide[s]” that:
In each county having a population of not less than 165,000 nor more than 190,000 according to the United States decennial census of 1970 or any future such census, when the county is authorized by law...
...or to March 31 of each year but not sooner than March 1 of each year. The date of closing for each year shall be established on or before January 10 in that year by resolution of the governing authority.
(Emphasis supplied.)
Acting pursuant to OCGA §
48-5-18 (e), the Council of Columbus, Georgia, as the governing authority for the consolidated governments of Muscogee County and the City of Columbus, passed a resolution on December 8, 1987 which established March 1, 1988 as the closing date for 1988 tax returns....
...he superior court. Cross-motions for summary judgment were filed. The superior court granted appellee’s motion for summary judgment and denied the Board’s motion on six separate grounds, one of those grounds being the unconstitutionality of OCGA §
48-5-18 (e)....
...228 (1) (115 SE2d 331) (1960). Accordingly, the non-constitutional grounds of the superior court’s order will be addressed first and, if any one of those grounds is meritorious, then none of the remaining grounds, including the constitutionality of OCGA §
48-5-18 (e), needs to be addressed.
1. As noted, OCGA §
48-5-18 (e) provides, in relevant part, that, in order to come within its scope, the county must have a population of a certain size and must also be “authorized by law or constitutional amendment to operate a joint tax receiving or tax assessing program with any other political subdivision....
...ions. If the requisite authority “to operate” a joint tax program were deemed already to extend to any and all counties pursuant to that general constitutional provision, then the General Assembly’s inclusion of the qualifying language of OCGA §
48-5-18 (e) which requires that “the county” be authorized to do so “by law or constitutional amendment” would be superfluous. It is, therefore, apparent that OCGA §
48-5-18 (e) contemplates the existence of a specific statute or constitutional amendment which authorizes “the county ......
...894 (pre-consolidation constitutional amendment which authorized the General Assembly to enact a statute creating a joint board of tax assessors for Muscogee County and the City of Columbus).
The Board further contends that Columbus, Georgia is brought within the scope of OCGA §
48-5-18 (e) by the provisions of its former charter which was in effect at the relevant times....
...such incorporated municipalities bear to Muscogee County and the City of Columbus prior to the adoption of [the former] Charter shall continue to the same extent with the consolidated government.
Ga. L. 1971, Extra. Sess., pp. 2007, 2014. Under OCGA §
48-5-18 (e), however, the post-consolidation continued existence of any incorporated municipality in Muscogee County other than the City of Columbus is irrelevant unless Columbus, Georgia is otherwise “authorized by law or constitutional amendme...
...In the absence of any federal or state statute specifically authorizing Columbus, Georgia “to operate a joint tax receiving or tax assessing program with any other political subdivision,” § 8-205 of the charter is inapplicable and would not satisfy the requirements of OCGA §
48-5-18 (e).
In the superior court and likewise on appeal, the Board has relied solely upon Art. XI, Sec. Ill, Par. I (a) of the Constitution of Georgia of 1983 and §§ 1-104 and 8-205 of the charter to show that Columbus, Georgia is a county which is otherwise within the scope of OCGA §
48-5-18 (e) and that the Board was, therefore, not required by OCGA §
48-5-18 (a) to leave its books open until April 1, 1988. As discussed above, neither that constitutional provision nor those provisions of the charter satisfy the requirement of OCGA §
48-5-18 (e) that Columbus, Georgia be “authorized by law or constitutional amendment to operate a joint tax receiving or tax assessing program with any other political subdivision....
...mary judgment in favor of the Board. The record before the superior court and this court compels the holding that appellee’s return was timely, because Columbus, Georgia has not been shown to be a county which is otherwise within the scope of OCGA §
48-5-18 (e) and, pursuant to OCGA §
48-5-18 (a), the Board was, therefore, unauthorized to close its books any earlier than April 1, 1988.
*313Decided June 27, 1994.
Eugene H....
