The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-07-01
AN IMPORTANT QUESTION.
The Duty of a Receiver Concerning the List
ing of Property for Taxation.

AS noted in the Journal at the time, Judge
Taylor recently entered an order in the matter
of the receiverships of Fletcher e Sharpe and
the Indiana Banking Company, directing that
the receivers should not make any return of the
personal property held by them for taxation
The Board of Equalization had previously been
advised by the county and city attorneys that it
was the duty of receivers TO list property held by
them in their fduciary capacity the same as
individuals. In the cases of the two receiver
ships above mentioned, however, they would
only be required to pay on the actual cash on
hand, for the reason that the Indebtedness IN
each case largely exceeds the credits, which the
| law authorizes to be off set, the one
| against the other. The order of Judge
Taylor greatly embarrassed the Board OF
Equalization, and they adjourned till July 2,
that the views Of their attorneys might be pre-
| scented to the court, with a view of having the
order vacated, if possible, and thus put the
board in position to make proper assessments
against the funds held by these receivers. The
questions involved were argued yesterday, and
Judge Taylor now has the case under advise
ment. After the argument closed a Journal
reporter interviewed City Attorney Denny, who
| represented the Board of Equalization, and
from him got reference to the sections of the
statute which he relied in his argument, and,
| in hasty talk, got some Of his individual views
of the questions involved. One section of the
tax law, to which the writer's attention was
called, provides that ''the personal property
of n, a person for whose benefit it is held
in trust" shall be listed ''by the trustee;" which
| would seem to be broad enough to cover the case
of a receiver. But still another section provides
In explicit terms, that 1.-The personal property OF
| corporations whose assets are in the hands of
| receivers shall be listed by such receivers"
Then under the chapter of the tax law which
provides for collections from fducaries, is found
| the following ut shall be the duty of every
receiver to pay the taxes
due, etc These sections would appear to be quite
| conclusive, SO far as they alone concerned,
that any controlling trust funds shall be re
| qured to list them in his trust capacity, and
likewise to pay the taxes assessed thereon out
| of such trust funds And there are still other
| provisions in the law, which were pointed out to
the writer, quite as convincing as the ones cited
| above But the writer was informed that the
| main argument advanced by counsel for
| the receivers was that the individual
| creditors of these defunct banks themselves
required to list their receivers certificates for
| taxation and this, it would seem, was the view
| of the court at the time the orders referred to
| were entered. For this position MIR. Denny
contends there is no authority His argument,
as the reporter caught it, is this: The statute
| requires that the tax payer, in making out his
personal return shall only be required to list his
moneys on hand, deposit, subject to his
order, check or draft" After the banks affairs
| goes into the hands of a receiver, the funds he
! previously had on deposit, are no longer subject
| to his check. They under the control
of the court, in the hands of a person
| who knows more about their value than
| the individual can know And again;
| the receivers admit that the real estate
| belonging to the trust is assessable in their
| Names as such receivers, and that they must
| pay the taxes charged against the same. And it
is contended that the personal property stands
| the statute was pointed out placing them an
real estate is taxable in the name of the receiv-
ers, is held to be conclusive reason why the
individual depositors not required to list
| their receivers certificates for taxation, for
| those certificates partly represented by the
real estate, and the creditors cannot In the ma
| ture of things, know how to separate the
| values of the two, and hence could
| not fix any certain even approximate value
| on the portion of his certificate represented by
the personal property in the hands of the
| ceiyer.
1t would seem, upon the whole, that admins
| traitors, guardians, receivers and trustees gen
| orally stand in entirely different position to
| the funds controlled by them from that of
| solvent bank clerk of a court who collects
| and holds money for litigants. In the one case
| the receiver holds the money absolutely, and
| without power on the part of the real owner to
control it. while in the other the money is at all
| times subject to the order of the owner.