Evening Republican, Volume 23, Number 163, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 8 July 1920 — SUPREME COURT HITS TAX LAW [ARTICLE]

SUPREME COURT HITS TAX LAW

HORIZONTAL INCREASES BY STATE BOARD ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. v The supreme court of Indiana affirmed Wednesday the decision of the Marion county Superior eouft, which granted an injunction to prevent the collection of taxes caused By the horizontal increase of assessments made by the state tax board. Suit was brought by a group of Marion county farmers, who carried the case to the Supreme court after being defeated in the Appellate court. The increased assessments amount to about $750,000,000 in the state, all of which is nullified by the decision of the Supreme court. 'Court Opinion. “It will be seen that the state board not only Undertook to determine the question of equalization as between counties,” the court decision reads, “but extended its considerations to the matters of equalizing the taxing units within the counties by means of horizontal increases varying in amounts as 'being the units as the judgment of the board might determine. Exceeded Authority. “When the board assumed to equalize the various taxing . units of a county at the time and in the manner here shown it thereby exceeded its authority, in that it assumed to exercise statutory functions not within its power or authority either expressly* or impliedly given to it by the state. “Paragraph eight does permit the board to make rules and regulations, but it does not rive authority to enact or amend the law or to enlarge its duties or extend its power beyond those given it by law. The legislature has determined the purposes for which the board was constituted and made certain rules for its guidance. Insofar as the legislature has prescribed rules the bpard must eomply with them and the tax payer has a right to rely on their being followed. No Power to Reassess. “However, for the orderly transaction of business confided to the board and to enable it to the duties enjoined upon it by law, it may make rules and regulations not inconsistent with legislative action. There is not a section, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase or word in the present tax law, save the sentence heretofore construed, that can by any reasonable rule of construction, be construed as giving the state board authority on its own motion as at its fourth session, to review and reassess or assess originally by horizontally increasing or decreasing the assessment of real or personal property, as was done in this case. The jurisdiction of the board at its fourth session has been determined by the legislature and any rule that the board might make purporting to give it additional authority or providing for other methods for assessments would be contrary to law and void.” Many Affected. The court then examined the complaint and interpreted it to allege that the appellees and more than 300 other tax payers of Washington township, Marion county, were affected by the tax board s order which specifically increased horizontally all Washington township lots and land assessments of 50 per cent, all improvements 30 per cent and all personal property except certain specified, 50 per cent. Court’s Conclusion. The court concluded that the several sections “expressly and clearly limit the board’s action: (1) to a consideration of the assessments of real estate and personal property of the various counties in -the state. (2) A determination of the counties in which the assessment of the real estate or personal ® r both appears too low. (3) Fix the time when it will consider the matter of the increase of such assessments. (4) Certify 4 to the auditor of each of the counties its determination to consider the increase of such assessments stating whether the proposed increase pertains to real .estate or personal property or both.”