The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1880-06-23

,Ot5 VI
This gave it full right to enter the State
for the transaction OF business. The law OF
Indiana does not particulsrize in any respect
between Fire and Life Insurance Com panies.
The act approved December 81, 1865, re-
quired Companies to have 800 600 capital,
and as it was known that few of the Life
Companies had any capital, the law was
from the first interpreted to mean assets"
and under this Interpretation the Mutual
Life assurances were admitted. The act
approved March 3. 1877, made the require
ment 5000, 900 capital, and the ruling was not
changed in any respect. But two or three Life
Insurance Companies doing business in this
State have 5000 600 capital, but all have that
amount and more of assets. Under this
ruling the Ohio Farmers, though q Mutual
Company, was admitted. In August, 1877,
my predecessor, Hon. f. Henderson, sent an
Examiner to the home office of your Com
pany to examine is and to report upon its
condition. His report was made and was of
such character that the Company was per-
mitted to remain in the State, and il fully
verified the statement filed by the Company.
Mr.. Finch in his report to me, stated after
a careful examination that the returns for
taxation had not included the commissions
paid to agents. This was not denied by the
officers OF the Company when writing to this
office, after the examination had been made.
Under date of May 20, 1880, you make a
supplementary statement and make tender
OF 1892, an amount estimated by the Exam
liner, to be due the State as taxes Ia this
statement was embodied full explanation
OF the manner OF keeping accounts and
making returns for taxation signed and
sworn to by the officers of the Company, and
claiming the utmost good faith on the part
Of the Company. This statement was re-
ferred to Hon. T. w. Woollen, Attorney
General, for his advice. as the law officer of
the State. Upon full consideration of the
same by him, ana advised that il am OF
the opinion that the Company had made its
returns for taxation in good faith, l should
not enforce the penalty, and should permit
the Company to remain in the State, but If
the returns were made with a purpose to de
fraud the State, am directed that it Is my
duty 10 proceed 10 collect the penalty and
expel the Company from the State.
have given the supplementary statement
a very careful consideration, and, in con-
nection with the statement made by the Ex-
aminer, appointed by Hon. f. Henderson,
which fully sustains the claim that there
was no concealment to him Of the manner of
making up returns for taxation, and as this
Is all of the evidence that have before me,
am unable TO conclude from il that it Is
my duty to cancel the authority of the
Company TO transact business in this
State. / am led to this conclusion by my
ruling in a case precisely analogous, viz
A prominent Lie Company had filed a
statement for taxation, in which they had
deducted the amount represented by divi-
dends to policy bolders. When my atten-
ton was called to this, referred the matter
to the Attorney General for his opinion; he
decided that returns should be made for the
entire premiums, without any deduction,
and so the Company now makes returns.
Technically this Company had violated the
law, exactly as has the Ohio Farmers, but
thinking they had acted in good faith, did
not enfoics the penalty or cancel the author
ity. A ruling against the Ohio Farmers in
this matter would require me to be consist
ent, to make the same ruling against this de-
linquent Life Company.
therefore accept the 1892 tax, for which
you Will find inclosed a receipt. In accept
ing the amount of tax which is found to be
due from your Company. / am governed in
my action to q certain extent by your sworn
supplementary report, the statement OF the
Examiner of the examination made in Au-
gust, 1917. the recent examination by Hon.
john A Finch, and theiopinion of the Attor-
ney General. From all of the evidence there
is not a doubt but what there has been
technical violation of the law, but not
sufficient. with the explanation, in nay judg-
ment, to exclude your Company from doing
business In this State. IL there are any par
ties in any manner aggrieved by my action
in this decision, the Courts of the State are
open to test the correctness of the decision
herein made. / have been governed solely
in IN action with a view to promote the best
interests of the State and the rights Of the
parties insurng with your Company, and to
deal justly with your Company, as have
endeavored to do with all Companies trans
acting business In this State.
Respectfully Yours,
M. d. MANSON,