Section 26 Defining ?New? or ?Increased? Levy

• Library: Tax Law 2009

In addition to prohibiting the levy of a new tax, license, or fee without voter approval, article X, § 22(a), of the Missouri Constitution prohibits political subdivisions “from increasing the current levy of an existing tax, license or fees, above that current levy authorized by law or charter” when Hancock was adopted unless there is voter approval.

In Roberts v. McNary, 636 S.W.2d 332 (Mo. banc 1982), discussed in §2.21 above, the Supreme Court of Missouri considered a voter-approved county charter amendment that granted the County Council broad legislative power to assess, levy, and collect taxes and to establish and collect fees for licenses, permits, inspections, and services performed by county officers and employees. The County argued that these voter-approved charter provisions, in effect at the time Hancock was adopted, authorized “fee” increases to be imposed by the County Council without further voter approval of the increases. The Court rejected this argument:

The first phrase of § 22(a) means that it does not affect any license or fee specific in amount which, although authorized at the time of the adoption of the Hancock Amendment, had not yet actually been imposed. The second phrase states that any license or fee existing (i.e., actually imposed) at the time the Hancock Amendment was adopted could not be increased without complying with § 22(a). Therefore, appellants’ assertion that a county can impose a license or fee under an enabling authority which sets no specific dollar amount or rate without complying with Art. X, § 22(a) must fail. The resolution of this issue also denies appellants’ argument that the voters’ adoption of the 1979 amendment to the St. Louis County Charter satisfies the “voter approval” requirement in Art. X, § 22(a).

Id. at 337.

Wenzlaff v. Lawton, 653 S.W.2d 215 (Mo. banc 1983), involved a challenge to city property tax ordinances that increased property tax levies that were above the rates in effect on the date the Hancock Amendment was adopted, but set the levies below the maximum authorized by law on that date. The Supreme Court of Missouri interpreted the language of § 22(a) as requiring voter approval for tax increases that were within the amount “authorized” by statute when the Hancock Amendment was adopted and operated to freeze taxes at the rate of levy in effect at the time the Hancock Amendment was adopted. The Court rejected arguments that Hancock operated to freeze taxes at the levels authorized...