Rensselaer Union, Volume 7, Number 12, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 10 December 1874 — Collection of Taxes. [ARTICLE]

Collection of Taxes.

The Auditor of State has recently received numerous letters from County Treasurers, calling his attention to an apparent conflict between certain sec-!, tions of the old and new law relating to the imposition of penalties for the nonpayment of taxes. Mr. Wildman has recently addressed a letter to the AttorneyGeneral requesting him to prepare a legal opinion which would tend to settle the question. That opinion is liere appended : Offick of Attorney-General, Nov. 27.1874. Hon. James A. Wildman, Auditor of State: Dear Sir—\our letter of the 24th iust. is received, in which you inquire as follows: " Should a penalty of 10 per cent, be added to the unpaid second installment of taxes after Nov. 15, when the first half was paid on or prior to the third Monday in April; and if the penalty is added, can the real estate be advertised and sold when there has been no opportunity to make the taxes out of peusonal property?” In my opinion vour first question should be answered in the affirmative and your second in the negative. The act approved Dec. 21,1872, provides as follows: “ Sec. 155. In case any person shall refuse or neglect to pay the tax imposed upou him, the County Treasurer shall, after the third Monday in April, levy the same,-.together with hiper centdamages,” etc. This act provided for the payment and collection of the taxes due for the entire year in one snm-. > The act approved March 8, 1873, Section 1. provides, “ That each person or tax-payer charged with taxes on a tax duplicate in the hands of a County Treasurer may pay the full amount of Buch taxes on or before the third Monday in April, or may. at his option, pay one-half thereon on or before the said third Monday in April, and the remaining on or before the 15th day of November following.” The same section contains a proviso “ that in all cases where as much as one-half of the amount of tax charged against a tax-payer shall not be paid on or before the third Monday in April, the whole amount charged shall become due and be returned delinquent, and collected as provided by law.” I understand your inquiry, therefore, to be predicated upon the assumption that the one-half due as the first installment in April has been paid in lull. The act approved March 8, 1873, was intended for the relief of tax-pavers, by permitting them to divide the burden of their annual taxes into two payments, at their option. It was not intended manifestly to place any ob stacies in the way of the collection of taxes. Such would be the effect, however, if it should receive such a construction that tax-payers could fail or refuse to pay and no penalty be added. Such a construction should not be given unless plainly required by the terms of the act. And this is not the case in this instance. The repealing clause of the act of 1873 provides “that all acts, or parts of acts, conflicting with the provisions of this act be, and the same are hereby, repealed.” ; _. The provision by Which tax-payers are per mitted, at their option, to discharge their taxes in two installments is simply an extension of time for the payment of one-half of the sum which they owe. It is not in conflict with Section 155 of the act approved Dec. 21. 1872, as quoted supra. On the contrary, they are to be be construed and enforced together. As to your second inquiry, it is true that, inasmuch as the statute provides for the sale of real estate on the second Monday in February, the time is so brief after the November installment shall have become due as to make it inconvenient for the Treasurer to levy upon and sell personal property., within the requisite period before the sale of r.eal estate. But this is one of those inconveniences which sometimes occur as the result of legislation, especially where, as in the instance before us, two statutes are enacted upon the same sub ject matter with different and distinct objects in view in each. The remedy for such inconveniences, however, is with the Legislature, and not with the courts. The inconvenience under consideration cannot alter the plain requirements of statutory enactment and judicial determination that personal property of the tax-payer first must he levied upon and sold before there can be a lawful sale

of his real estate.

C. A. BUSKIRK,

Attorney-General.