
    SINCLAIR PRAIRIE OIL MARKETING CO. v. STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION.
    No. 25216.
    June 25, 1935.
    Edward H. Chandler, Summers Hardy, Paul B. Mason, and Prank Orr, for plaintiff in error.
    J. Berry I-Cingv Atty. Gen., and F. M. Dudley,, Asst, Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.
   CORN, J.

The plaintiff in error presents to this court an appeal from the State Board of Equalization in equalizing, adjusting, and correcting the valuation of property for the year of 1933. The case involves five complaints of the Sinclair Prairie Oil Marketing Company, a corporation, -filed before the State Board of Equalization, numbered from 82 to 96, inclusive, and consolidated and heard all together by said board. The "omplainant was aggrieved by the valuation placed upon its steel crude oil storage tanks in Carter, Creek, Lincoln, Pawnee, and Washington counties;

The board fixed a flat rate of nine cents per barrel on the steel crude oil tankage, under a resolution of said board establishing a uniform basis for the valuation and assessment of steel crude o'il tankage throughout the state, said resolution being as follows:

“Be it further resolved, that it is the intention of the board to so equalize, adjust, and correct the county assessments of steel, crude oil tankage so as to make that class of property assessed at a maximum value of nine cents per barrel on tankage over-seven years old and thirteen and one-half cents per barrel on tankage under seven years old.”

It appears from the record that all but eleven of the 458 tanks owned by the complainant in these counties were over seven years old and that the nine-cent rate applied on practically all of its tankage. The board increased the valuation of its crude oil in storage 40 per cent.

At the hearing upon the complaint, the board changed the valuation on crude oil in storage from the increase of 40 per cent, to 32 per cent., and dismissed the complaints as to the tankage.

The complainant failed to offer any evidence at the hearing that was of any value or assistance to the State Board of Equalization in determining the true value of the tanks. Its witnesses were unable to give an estimate of the cost of construction of any of the tanks In question, but based their valuation of the property at what the tanks would bring as salvage or junk, or what they would be worth for the purpose of cutting down and removing to some other location for reconstruction.

This is by no means a proper way to determine the fair cash value of property at a voluntary sale, at which property is required by the Constitution and statutes of this state to be assessed. The Tax Commission produced witnesses at the hearing who testified as to the cost of construction of the steel tanks of various capacities, and one of these witnesses was qualified as an expert in making appraisals of that particular kind of property, and he had visited the tank farms and made an Inspection of the property. He testified that the value of the tanks ranged from 76 to 85 per cent, of the value of new tanks; that the complainant was a going* concern and that said tanks were in use by the¡ company and were indispensable to tbe successful operation of tbe business. It was established at said hearing that the cost of old tanks, reset and rebuilt, was as follows.

A 55,000 barrel capacity tank, from $18,903 to $22,400.
A 37,500 barrel capacity tank, from $11,100 to $11,331.

That new tanks for the storage of crude oil had been constructed by pertain companies during the years 1930 to 1931 at costs as follows:

A 10,000 barrel capacity tank, from $5,617.00 to $9,749.00.
30,000 barrel capacity, $16,660.00.
36,478 barrel capacity, $16,687.00.
Two 80,000 barrel capacity tanks, $92,8J4.93.
Two 80,000 barrel • capacity tanks, $72,608.62.
Two 80,000 barrel capacity tanks, $73,646.12.
Two 50,000 barrel capacity tanks, $44,999.38.
One 50,000 barrel capacity tank, original cost $22,-
750.00, and additional cost of $10,657.93 incident to removing and resetting the same.

From these figures it .may readily be seen that a rate of nine cents per barrel tank-age is far below tbe actual cost of construction of sucb tanks, and so long as sncb tanks are usable, the valuation applied to them by tbe State Board of Equalization Is not excessive.

The assignments of error of tbe plaintiff in error are as' follows:

“Tbe equalized • value of the plaintiff in error’s property as fixed, by tbe State ¡Board of Equalization was in excess of tbe fair cash value thereof estimated at the price it would bring at a fair voluntary sale.
“Tbe State Board of Equalization adopted an arbitrary system of valuation without regard to and in violation of tbe principle of uniformity and equality required by the Constitution of Oklahoma and tbe Fourteenth Amendment of tbe Constituion of the United States.”

Tbe first assignment of error needs no further discussion than we have already given to the valuation of tbe tankage as fixed by the State Board of Equalizaion. As to tbe latter assignment of error, it is difficult for us to see bow tbe principle of uniformity and equality is violated by tbe method or system used in equalizing tbe assessment of said tankage so long 'as the equalized value does not exceed tbe fair cash value of tbe property. The plaintiff in error suggests that a more correct method of assessing this property would be to fix and assess tbe value of each tank individually, having regard for its age and its particular condition. In dealing with a large number of tanks varying in age and varying slightly in condition, the method used by tbe State Board of Equalization seems to strike an average which approximates a true valuation of tbe group as a whole.

No particular method of valuation is prescribed by the Constitution or tbe statutes for the guidance of the Board of Equalization in determining the value of property, and tbe method used in this case is immaterial, so long as it does not appear that the value so determined and fixed by tbe board does not exceed the fair cash value of tbe property. The same method was applied to all tankage in tbe state, thereby effecting uniformity of valuation, and equally distributing the tax burden upon that class of property.

Section 8, article 10, of tbe Oklahoma Constitution provides that: ■

“All property which .may be taxed ad valorem shall be assessed for taxation at its fair cash value, estimated at tbe price it would bring at a fair voluntary sale. * * *”

In reviewing the assessment of tbe State Board of Equalization, tbe presumption exists in favor of tbe correctness of tbe determination of tbe value fixed by tbe board. See In re Kansas City Southern Ry. Co., 168 Okla. 495, 33 P. (2d) 722, and authorities therein cited.

Haying examined tbe record in this case, and it appearing that the complainant has failed to show that its property was valued above its fair cash value, tbe order of tbe State Board of Equalization is affirmed.

MCNEILL, C. X, OSBOBN, V. C. X, and BUSBY, WELCH, and GIBSON, JX, concur. RILEY, BAYLESS, and PHELPS, XL, absent.  