Case ID: pa_266/html/0016-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Cushing’s Petition.
    
      Taxation — Personal property tax — Residence—Findings of fact Review.
    
    Where a person refuses to make a tax return alleging that he is a nonresident of the county, and a return is made for him by the taxing authorities, an appeal from such return is properly dismissed, where the court finds on sufficient evidence that he was in fact a resident of the county.
    Argued October 14, 1919.
    Appeal, No. 8, Oct. T., 1919, by S. D. Cushing, from order of C. P. Allegheny Co., April T., 1918, No. 1882, dismissing appeal from tax assessment In re Petition of S. D. Cushing.
    Before Brown, C. J., Mosci-izisker, Frazer, Walling, Simpson and Kephart, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Appeal from assessment of personal property. Before Macfarlane, J.
    From the record it appeared that S. D. Cushing, the appellant, after notice, neglected or refused to make a return of his personal property and the board for the assessment and revision of taxes assessed him as having-property subject to tax in the sum of $500,000, and added the penalty of fifty per cent, a total assessment of $750,000. Before the assessment he notified the board of his refusal on the ground that he was a nonresident.
    The court found that the appellant was a resident of Alleghefiy County, and dismissed the appeal. Cushingappealed.
    
      Error assigned was the order dismissing the appeal!
    
      Charles A. Woods, for appellant.
    
      Lee C. Beatty, of Beatty, Magee <& Martin, for appellee, were not heard.
    
      January 5, 1920 :
   Per Curiam,

The appellant neglected and refused to make a return of his personal property to the taxing authorities of Allegheny County, on the ground that he was not a resident of that county. The sixth fact found by the court below was: “The appellant is a resident of Allegheny County and has no present intention of removing elsewhere. He has no domicile or residence in Washington and has no intention of residing there unless at some uncertain time in the future he may take up a residence there.” As this was supported by evidence in the case, the order which followed it is affirmed.

Order affirmed.