Los Angeles herald., 1890-12-14
THAT SHORTAGE.
EXPERT ACCOUNTANTS DIFFER IN
THEIR CALCULATIONS.
Expert Eddy Reports on the Tax Collect
or's Accounts to the Supervisors-He
Figures Out Deficit.

Expert N. B. Eddy yesterday reported
to the supervisors as follows, anent the
stated deficit in the accounts of County
Tax Collector Plat:
In the report made to the board of
supervisors by Mr.. w. r. Blackman, on
May 10, 1890, he shows an indebted
ness to the county by the tax collector
in the sum OF $337.94 in that of Mr..
Edgar Moore, made to the grand Jury
October 15 1890, he wipes out that in
debtedness and shows credit OF $lSS. .48,
making difference in the two accounts
OF S526.42.
AS requested, l have examined the
two statements, and beg to report:
First-Mr. Moore gives the amount of
the tax collectors receipts for the month
of March at $33, ,65447. l have added
the cash book and find that the collec-
tions foot up $33, ,S5447, as made by the
tax collector. Deducting this error OF
5000, and we have reduced the 1926. AZ
to $32642.
Second-Mr. Moore allows a second
credit of $29s.6S, being the original
amount in dispute between Mr.. Black
man, the tax collector and auditor.
1t represents the difference between
| the special school taxes collected by
| the assessor on personal property assess
ments, at the rates of 1883, and the
rates fixed by the board for 1889, in con-
nection with the personal property taxes
collected by the auditor.
Mr.. Moore says in his report, "in fact
very small proportion of this $29S 6S
came from that source" that is from the
auditors collections.
The tax collector in his report to the
board of supervisors made on or about
May 10, 1890, uses this unequivocal Ian
guage: Refund" of school tax errone-
ously collected and "over collections" in
volume s, as per statement rendered
auditor, $29S 6S." 1t would appear from
the tax collectors language that Mr..
MoOre's conclusion as to the source from
whence this item was derived is an err
roneous one.
These rebates were allowed the tax
| payer by the auditor, and the stubs
show the transaction complete in every
detail. The collections, less rebates. were
turned over to the tax collector by the
auditor, the stubs accompanying the
money in all cases, and the net amounts
80 received were entered in the cash
book.
1 have checked the same with the
book and find them to tally, excepting
where in making change there is an oc.
casional difference OF few cents for and
against.
Now, as the auditor made all of the
collections of personal property taxes
and as it appears that he allowed all the
rebates, it would naturally follow that
the tax collector had no right to make 9
second allowance.
| have searched the cash book from
beginning to end, but fail to find any
evidence therein that the rebates were
| allowed by the tax collector. think
therefore that this item should not be
allowed.
Deducting $29S.6S, and we have to be
accounted for $2774.
In Mr.. Blackman's report he alludes
to an unaccounted balance of 1926
Mr.. Moore accounts for 1882 in differ.
ences discovered by him in checking,
and am OF the opinion that that sum
should be allowed. Deducting 1852
from 1926 leaves $23.74, leaving unac-
counted for 81.
This last item is claimed by Mr.. Moore
to be an error in the January footings oi
the collectors cash book, an item that
have not had the time to investigate.
In conclusion, it seems to me from all
the evidence, that the tax collector il
still indebted to the county for the
amount of rebates in dispute, $298. .68
and for the $23. IA "unaccoun.ed for
making his total indebtedness 1922. .42.
Respectfully submitted,
n. Z. EDDY.