The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-03-07
AGAINST TAX EVASION
Supreme Courts Ruling Where
Property Was Not Assessed.
Holds that the 1891 Act Did Not Repeal
the Law Authorizing Assessment
of Omitted Property.

On sept. IL, 1871, Nathaniel w. Bowen,
administrator of the estate of Abner II.
Bowen, deceased, entered suit in the Car
roll Circuit Court against Isaac Reynolds,
county auditor. and others. asking for the
cancellation of certain taxes charged
against that estate. Defendants demurred,
and their demurrers were overruled, where
upon they refused To plead further judg-
ment was rendered against them, and the
auditor and treasurer were ordered to
strike from the tax duplicate of Carroll
county the several amounts which had been
placed upon the duplicate by the auditor as
omitted property. That official and the
treasurer, who were the defendants in the
suit then appealed to the Supreme Court,
and that tribunal yesterday reversed the
decision of the lower court, with instruc-
tons to sustain the demurrers which had
been overruled.
1t appears that the auditor having re
ceived information that certain personal
property Of the decedent had not been listed
for taxation for the years from 1881 to 1889,
inclusive, issued to the administrator a
written notice requiring him to appear and
show cause why such omitted property
should not be added to the tax duplicate.
The administrator appeared and moved to
set aside the notice as insufficient which
motion was overruled. Thereupon he an
swered, repeating his first objection that
the notice did not describe the omitted
property specifically, and stating that he
had no means of knowing whether the sums
charged as omitted were correct or not.
He further stated that for each of the
years named the deceased had subscribed
and sworn to a tax list made out in due
form and handed to the proper assessor,
and that this valuation was approved by
the assessor, who had returned the same
TO the auditor; that said valuations were
submitted to the Board of Equalization, APP
proved and placed by the auditor on the
tax duplicate, and the deceased had paid
in full all taxes assessed upon such valua-
tons.
The auditor claimed he was embarrassed
in his investigation by the refusal of those
who had charge of the books, notes, mort
cages and papers of the deceased to pro-
duce them in evidence. Hence he was COM
PEELED to decide from the best evidence be-
fore him, which convinced him that his esti-
mates of the value Of the property claimed
to have been omitted by him were correct
This property for the several years men,
toned was as follows: 1881. moneys. money
loaned and credits, S1Oi,6O0; 1882. same, S134,
Co., 1883, same, $4,000; 1884, same, $l62,5OO
1885, same, $172 coo; 1886, same, $175, 900: 1884,
same, $21S, $40; 1888. same, 900; 1889, same
$685. 900. The taxes due on this property, he
claimed were $4,000
The objections to the auditors assess
ment urged in appellee'S brief are the same
as those made in the lower court. The
Supreme Court diSpoSeS of them all at
considerable length, finding nothing in them
to sustain the position taken by the ap-
pellee. The auditor, the opinion says, was
authorized by the statute TO proceed as he
did upon receiving information, written or
oral, that any property has been omitted
from taxation. The auditor can necessarily
give only general description of the prop
erty, the tax law requiring the property
owner himself TO give a particular descrip-
ton of the property when he hands his list
TO the assessor Another fatal defect" the
opinion holds, was the administrators de
Tense that the decedent made his own as
seSSment, SWOre to 1t, the assessing officers
accepted the assessment SO made, and now
there is no help for it. The appellee makes
no pretense that the assessment was fair or
sast, or that the decedent had in fact given
In all his property for taxation. He says,
in effect, to the State, The thing is done
and what are you going to do about it? "
One of the contentious of the appellee was
that the tax law of 1891 repealed all for
mer laws upon the subject of taxation, and
took away all rights existing under former
laws except such are expressly saved,
and as the right of the auditor TO assess
omitted property for any year or years
prior to its passage is not saved by the act
of 1884, such right does not exist.
This again." says the Supreme Court,
sis claiming equity without doing equity.
If these taxes are imposed they belong TO
the State They are the States property,
and the right of the State 20 them never
ceased This contention amounts TO say
ing, These taxes may belong TO the State,
but she has deprived herself of the means
of collecting them. But, as a matter of
fact, the statute of 1891 has not repealed
the law authorizing the assessment Of
omitted property by the auditor. The Leg
islature in enacting this law had no inten-
ton of giving delinquent taxpayers any
such advantage over the honest people of
the State. If there is any class of property
more than another which that law ought
TO have returned and appraised at its true
value 1t is such property as is concerned in
this suit, and which has for so long a
time escaped taxation in the hands of un-
scrupulouS money lenders, namely, money,
notes bonds and other credits"
The opinion further says that the Supreme
Court has little difficulty in concluding
that the Legislature, in enacting a law
which might in some measure relieve the
people Of the State from the evils of I'M
equal taxation, would never think of re-
pealing a law which provided for assess
ing property which had been for years
dishonesty kept off the tax duplicate, par
enacted word for word in the new statute.
There remains therefore" concludes the
opinion mo ground which the complaint
i'm this case can stand. 1t may be added
that when we find honest officials respecters
Of their oaths. as the auditor and eX-au-
ditor the appellants in this case, 1t is the
duty of the courts TO uphold their efforts
with the strong support of the law as en-
acted by the Legislature Of the State