Jasper County Democrat, Volume 23, Number 30, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 10 July 1920 — IN AN AWFUL MESS NOW [ARTICLE]

IN AN AWFUL MESS NOW

Supreme Court Nullifies Horizontal Tax Raise. AFFECTS $750,000,000.00 Assessment Raise Made by State Board of Tax Commissioner*-— Every County In State Is Hit. Indianapolis, July 8. —Increased assessments of approximately $750,000,000 are nullified by the decision of the Indiana supreme court which yesterday affirmed the decision of the Marion superior court in which the lower court ruled that the state board of lai commissioners exceeded its authority when it ordered horizontal tax assessment Increases last August in such manner as to differentiate betwen classes of property and parts of counties. Governor Goodrich, after a conference with members of the state board of tax commissioners, directed Charles Kettlebrough, head of the legislative reference bureau, to stop the printing of the bill amending the state tax law which had been prepared for submission to the special session of the legislature next week. Tax experts declared that Inasmuch as practically every tax levy In the state was fixed last September and October on the basis of the assessment totals after the horizontal Increases were ordered, the taxes have been collected on the basis of these levies and the taxation situation In the state has been made bhaotic. “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. "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 give 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 board must comply with them and the taxpayer has a right to rely on their being followed. “However, for the orderly transaction of busings confided to the board and to enable it to perform 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 tor assessments would be contrary to law and void.” The court then examined the complaint and interpreted it to allege that the appellees and more than 300 other taxpayers of Washington township, Marlon 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. The court concluded that tjie 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 property or both appears too low. (3) Fix the time when it will consider the matter of the increase of such assessments. (4) Certify 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.”