The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1886-08-13


I quired by this Act, a statement of the dat
D OF the mortgage and OF the amour; thereo
= and the names and addresses OF the r.
= spectiye mortgages"
Mr.. Hayselden moved the section b
; struck out. Agreed 10.
On motion Of Mr.. Hayselden, section {
which refers 10 mortgages, deeds Of trust
contract, or other obligations by which
debt is received, and which Is quite lengthy
was stricken out.
Section 9. That section 25 of the saiC
Act be and the same is hereby amended 5,
as TO read as follows:
Section p. The interest Of every per
| son in any property shall be separately as
sessed Except a. hereinbefore provided il
! respect to shareholders III or members o.
companies) and every person shall be liza,
! BILE to taxation in respect of the full cash
value Of his interest in such property"
Mr.. Hayselden moved the section pass.
Mr.. Dole moved it be struck out. He
opposed the change, which went behind the
leases of land.
Mr.. Hayselden supported the section
and denied the truth of the statement of
Mr.. Dole, that under the section proposed
the owner of lands leased formerly at a
low rental would now be assessed to the
full value of the land. He called attention
TO the section that every person shall be
liable to taxation III respect of the full
cash value of his interest in such property"
\ persons interest in any property would
be estimated by the income derived and
the enhanced value would be question for
the lessee and lessor TO arrange. There
were many abuses of the present law which
stipulated that all property leased for one
year or upwards should pay taxes only
upon eight times its yearly rental. He
knew of many cases where property own
ers had leased lands at one dollar per year,
and all that could be assessed was S., the
taxes on which would be six cents: vet the
value of such properties was one, two and
three thousand dollars. 1t was not true,
as Mr.. Dole had stated, that the lessee
could be assessed for the difference. The
honorable member cited the case of the
land of Little Britain, on King street,
owned by Mr.. Wright, who bought the
property three years ago for $18 500; it was
then under lease to Captain Luce at $500
per annum, and under the present law it
could not be assessed, and had not been,
for more than eight times that amount,
which would be So 200. Whereas the ad-
joining property OF Mr.. Wilcox, of the
same actual value, was assessed at $40, 900,
because it was not under lease. Under the
present law there was nothing to prevent
man from making any lease of prop
erty he wished to hold to a relative
for a nominal sum, and the Assessor
would be bound by it; the case
cited was only one of very many of a SINH
lar nature. The rich men of this King
dom did not pay taxes on so per cent of
their property. 1t was not true, as stated
by the Opposition, that the law of 1882,
with the eight year clause in it, had raised
the taxes above what they were; the con-
trary was the fact. The honorable mem
Der, taking a tax return from his pocket,
stated that here was a sample of how the
Government were defrauded. 1t was the
return of rich man. and the total value
of the property sworn to was less than
800, 900, whereas the owner had given cash
for the same property not one year ago,
$500 Under the present law it would |
be impossible to assess the owner for more |
than half of what he had given for the |
property, but the passage of the section |
now before the committee would remedy |
that defect, and make every man pay on
the full value of his interest in any and all !
property that he owned. Besides, if any |
person was over-assessed he had his |
remedy before the Appeal Board. or if he |
was dOubly taxed on any one property he !
had his remedy before the Supreme Court.
And furthermore, there was a new bill in
troduced to-day to provide for a Board of |
in each district; and that /
would be an additional safeguard to over
or. under assessment on the part OF Asses
Sors.
Mr. Thurston said: The subject is an in
tricate one, and upon first reading the
change proposed he was favorably inn
pressed with it, but since hearing Mr.. !
argument in favor of the |
change, he was in favor of the law as it |
now stands The instance which he has
cited of a man with half a million return
ing property for only sos, 900 has no bear
ing, as he admits that this was not accom-
pIished by means of this section, but sim
a piece of land, and if Tax Assessor
knows the value of piece of land, knows
that the owner undertakes it, and that it
does not come under the section fixing
values of leased lands, and does not know
what TO do it shows that he is such a
Dlockhead that he is not fit for his position.
The law, as it stands. now assesses leased |
and to the owner at eight times the
amount of the rent. There is definite
rule which the most ignorant Assessor can
The change proposes to do
away with this rule and to leave it to the
Judgment and discretion of the Assessors
TO decide the value of the lessor interest
n leased land. The argument against the
rule is that in individual instances, as
given by Mr.. Hayseden, the free actual
value of cane land will not be taxed. On !
The other hand, the argument against the
change is that it will make confusion, I'M
lust and uneven assessments and promote |
appeals and litigation. Where there is
1ne instance of unfair valuation, as cited !
Dy Mr. Hayselden, there are fifty instances |
where the valuation under the rule is fair. |
1t is better to have a rule which will work 4
,airly in the vast majority of cases and in /
sure certainty rather than to trust 10 the /
l..