- 10 -
acquisition of private property and raises the question of
whether a different result is compelled in the matter at hand.
This question, in turn, presents two subinquiries upon which its
resolution depends. The first, a legal question, asks what is
meant by the term “payment” as used in and exempted from taxation
by the statute. The second, a factual question, asks whether the
$65,000 received by petitioner is indeed such a payment.
A. Meaning of Payment for Purposes of the Relocation Act
To ascertain the meaning of “payment” as used in the
Relocation Act, we consider the historical context in which the
statute was drafted, the language and structure of the statute
itself, and the interpretations thereof offered by case law.
From these sources, we conclude that “payment” for purposes of
the exemption treatment afforded by the Relocation Act refers
only to amounts received as relocation assistance in excess of
the just compensation paid for the property.
At the time the Relocation Act was promulgated, payment of
just compensation upon the taking of private property for public
use had long been mandated by the Federal Constitution and by the
constitutions of individual States, including that of South
Dakota. See U.S. Const. amend. V; S.D. Const. art. VI, sec. 13.
Just compensation had also been further defined, at both the
Federal and State levels, as fair market value, what a willing
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011