New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1880-05-18
TAXING LIFE TNSURANOE cos.
THEIR PROTEST AGAINST THE ASSEMBLY
BILL.

THEIR PROTEST AGAINST THE ASSEMBLY
BILL.
ARGUMENTS BY NEssRs ANDREWS, ALEXANDER
LEWIS AND oTHERs-PoIETs OF THE CASE.
By appointment the Life Insurance Companies ap-
| peared before the Governor yesterday morning al
Albany to present their arguments against the la"
recently passed by the Legislature taxing Life In
surance.
They were represented by the Hon. George n.
Andrews the Hon. Henry NJ. Alexander, Charlton
T. Lewis Esq, and Others.
The arguments made embraced the following
points among others against Assembly Bill 459.
1. IMPERFECT AND VAGUE.
Imperfeot Section l taxes " Premium, Interest,
Section requires returns to be made by the compan-
lon for any returns 70 interest aud other income
Section l should be amended TO correspond win
Section q or Section 2 should be made to CORRESPOND
Vague. The basis of the Is section u the gross
amount of premiums, interest, and other Income re-
ceived by such oOmpsny upon business transacted IN
State to be understoodf company loans on mort,
gage Conneccutwhere Is that business transactedf
or o0Gs oCRSs ., "a f ty IN
The act should define CLEARLY the meaning 10 De the
Interest or income from Investments upon properly
a still more Important question remains rs to the
New.York company Witch insists thai all ITS contracts
made within this State. The intention OF the bill Is
policies nsurng tho lives OF residents OF this state, but
tnis by means clear from IT'S terms ould Il be
construed otherwise the effect would be to tax again In
this State premiums which have already been taxed I'D
another state and would besides be at variance Ttn
the companies Of other States for business transacted In
this State.
II. AT VARIANCE WITH PRESENT SYSTEM.
The principle underlying the present system of taxa
ton this state s to tax man or corporation upon
what he owns, what he Is worth To determine this
his debts deducted from his possessions ana ne Is
taxed upon the remainder.
What is the status OF life insurance company under
this rule Its assets are its possessions It's reserves are
IFS drbs the difference between these is its surplus or
what is worth That Is to say from the assets are to
he deducted debts including the necessary to
rehsre the risks OF the company, and the difference Is
Take the last tax return OF one company It reported
surplus OF $l11440il o. OF which the cost OF real
estate owned $791l,sO5 IL. This real estate Is
taxed us all other such property is.
But this act proposes 10 tax the income derived from
the assets against which stand the debts O company
Further, 1t taxes the rents from real estate already
taxed. 49,,
III. THIS BILL PART OF NEW SYSTEM.
1t be answered to the last objection that this bill
not Itself constitute system II is only small cog
wheel IN vast machine which must consist OF many
with this Is this poor wheel TO be left alone TO grind
tile interests Of life insuranc1f
suggest, with great decrence that this bill be made
harmonious sections aud then await the progress
OF legislation In constructing the entire system.
". ULTERIOR EFFECTS OF THIS BILL.
This BILL II approved, VIII produce results upon me
business OF life insurance far beyond the limits of this
state Massachusetts Ohio, New Jersey, Wisconsin,
Connecticut California Missouri Texas, Vermont. Hi
Iuls and other states have In common with New.YOrk,
what known as reciprocal laws Ih6 law OF new
York Is as fOllOWBi
"Whcneyer the existing or future laws Of any other
State shall require Of insurance companies organized
taxes '"' all companies Of such States having an
agency In this State ha pay 10 t9 s1no o fS
amount such charges and payments imposed by the
laws o such state upon the companies OF TINS etSte;
The laws OF the states enumerated are founded upon
tho principle this OF our State. aud me APP
prevail Of thus bill wilrat set in operation these So
called reciprocal. but more properly reiaiatory laws
with results OF which this Is perhaps the most striklnR
instance. The laws OF Ohio provide that when auy
same shall be Imposed Ia Ohio upon all companies or
such other stat. Only one Ohio company does bust
ness in Ncw-YorK, aud collected 1884 In pre-.
miums III 1870. The New-Y0rk Life Companies received
IN Ohio In 1879, $13iS,253. thus the pending bill. u
WIN OccI fro.u Ohio companies S3 81 for the
Treasury OF Htw,York az an additional cost OF
ucird by Il to pay the Treasury OF OhOthus lu-
posing rlnns cost of collection on The New-fOrk
companies equal 10 three hundred ana eighty thOnsanu
percent upon collected as revenue 10 tns stare
IL does not 10 more than refer 10 tue
fact this state has, period OF nearly twenty
nye wears by ~ cc,ticiiIly cxtmptng the
NE inslr,uce from taxation, attracted many millions
OF cal this st Itc most or which has Oecn invested
here to the advantage aud Development OF is business
pron.r;y 10 taxation should be- effected only cmp-
auc with the requirements OF revised system and In
clearly defined as not 70 De nsunuesOOu anu
CNarilng the minimum rate cOhsisleht Win suSh ken
fl is not expedeDt TO recite herein the oogent reasons
which might be stated why the liberal policy SO long
savings IN this form might he wisely adhered 70.
Recognizing the authority OF tho State aS supreme.
n dutlul compliance with the requirements Of any
clear and well-dcined law may be counted upoh'