The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1869-10-22
State Taxes.

|
Under the Tax act passed by the Legisla-
ture in September, 1868, all merchants are
taxed upon the average monthly value oil
the property pertaining to their business in
the year ending September l, 1868. The
merchants had already paid during the year
! 1868, as in 1867, tax on their sales, ac-
cording 10 the then existing rule of taxa
ton. The tax for 1868 was especially heavy,
and when the Legislature passed law that
another tax should be paid, in another
shape, for the same period, it was thought
by many merchants that the last named as
sessment would, in reality represent their
taxation for 1869. They are informed, how
ever, that the taxes assessed last spring are
for the year ending September l, 1868, and
are called on to make new returns for the
year ending September 1, 1869, the new
tax being payable in March next. This
is to all intents and purposes, double tax
Thinking that the Legislature, at the time
of the enactment of the present law, was
ignorant of the fact that the merchants OF
the State had already paid tax on the ope-
rations of the year 1868, and with the hope
of obtaining some relief for himself and his
friends one Of our leading merchants made
application, in person and by letter, to the
State Auditor, to know whether those who
had previously paid should not be exempt
from the new tax or be credited with the
amount already paid; and asking, further,
whether the payment of the tax of 1869
could not be postponed until the meeting OF
the Legislature if the State Auditor could
not himself decide the question. To this
application Mr.. Tomlinson made the follow
ing reply:
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT,
OFFICE OF AUDITOR OF STATE,
COLUMBIA, s. c., October ls, 1869.
Ed,oi,, Bates, Esq, Charleston, S. c.:
DEAR SIR-I have carefully considered yours
of 18th instant, and also the statements made
by YOU in your interview with me, relative
to your exemption from the tax assessed
against you and other merchants for the fiscal
year 1868. You claim inasmueh Us you paid
q quarterly tax upon your sales during the
year 1868, although said tax was for the fiscal
year 1867, that therefore the tax now charged
and to be collected on the average colue Of
your stock for the year preceding September
/, 1868, is double tax, and therefore illegal,
and should mot be Collie tied. You also ask
that if do not feel at liberty to decide the
question Of the legality Of this law, that will
postpone its collection until the Legislature
meets, and have an opportunity of acting in
the premises.
need not assure you that would take
pleasure in exercising In favor Of yourself and
the gentlemen you represent all the power
upon me ny law, s.,.a iiivio shsu tiiis
am sure you would not ask. The question
you raise has been before me for decision fire.
quently, from other parts of the State, and
have been unable, and am still unable, to find
anything in the Tax act which would justify
me in passing judgment upon the legality OF
the tax in question. When the present law
was passed, although it was known that the
quarterly tax referred to was being collected,
no exception was made in favor Of those who
were then paying that tax Equity might re-
quire that such an exception should be made,
but the Legislature having failed to make it, it
is certainly out of my province to do so.
With regard to the postpcnement of the COL
lection of this tax, would say that in my
opinion, the law does not, and did not intend
to, confer upon me the authority to postpone
the collection of taxes in individual cases. 1t
is manifest that such power would be liable
to great abuse and defeat the very object of
the law, which is to secure an 6qral, uniform
and prompt collection of the taxes.
Without conceding that your view Of the
question is correct, am willing to admit
that there is much to be said in its favor; and in
accordance with my desire to help you all
can, and with the view Of bringing the question
before the Legislative in the most favorable
and practicable way, I will instruct the audi
tor of each county to make out list OF the
merchants in his county who have paid the
quarterly tax referred to, with the amount
thereof IN each case. This statement will be
laid before the Legislature, and I have no
doubt that the subject will receive the consid-
Grafton 1t deserves. If the Legislature grants
relief, it will be perfectly practicable to refund
the amount overpaid, or to deduct it from the
next tax to be collected. If the Legislature
should not grant relief, it must be clear to
you that any action OF the kind you propose
would not only fail of its object, but would ex-
pose me to the just censure Of that body.
I am, very respectfully,
Your obedient servant,
REUBEN ToNLISsoS,
State Auditor.
We do not see that Mr.. Tomlinson had