3244

VETOES

"No appeal shall stay or in any manner affect the
collection or enforcement of the assessment, tax, levy,
or classification complained of [unless], EXCEPT FOR
ASSESSMENTS MADE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 81, SECTION 13(B),
IN WHICH CASE the taxpayer shall file with the agency
responsible for collection thereof a bond to the State
of Maryland, with corporate surety to be approved by
the Department, conditioned upon the payment of such
assessment and all interest accruing thereon until
paid."

The body of the till does not in any way clarify the
"procedures" which stay the collection of taxes, but instead
provides that in the case of assessments made pursuant to
Article 81, Section 13(b) only an appeal bond may be filed.

We believe that the effect of this amendment is to
limit the right to file an appeal bond to stay the
collection of taxes to assessments of real and personal
property which are directed by Section 13(b) to be made by
the State Department of Assessments and Taxation as opposed
to those made by the local assessing authorities.

It is our opinion that the present Section 260 permits
the filing of an appeal bond to stay the collection of taxes
levied on assessments made pursuant to Section 13(a), which
enumerates property locally assessed, as well as those made
pursuant to Section 13(b).

Section 260 appears in Article 81 after a series of
sections (Sections 255-259) which deal with appeals of
assessments made by the local supervisor of assessments and
assessments made by the State Department of Assessments and
Taxation. It immediately precedes Section 261 dealing with
refunds. Section 26 1 has been consistently interpreted by
the State and county governments to apply to assessments
made by the Department and by the local supervisors. Since
there is no indication by virtue of its placement in the
Code that Section 260 is limited to appeals of assessments
made pursuant to Section 13(b) and there is nothing in the
language of that statute as it now exists which would so
indicate, we can only conclude that the effect of these
bills would be to change the present law to limit the
taxpayers to whom the appeal bond procedure is available.

Since there is nothing in the title which gives notice
that such a change of law is contained in the bodies of
these tills, we believe that House Bill 1889 and Senate Bill
834 are unconstitutional.

Very truly yours,
Francis Bill Burch
Attorney General