Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1894-01-04
EXCESSIVE ASSESSMENTS.
The Commissioners Cannot Alter or Amend
the Tax Lists.
Attorney Thomas Strong Argument
ment - The Case ut Issue.

An important opinion was rendered by
the attorney for the District today, bear
ing upon the new assessment.
1t seems that Mary A. Kelly owns house
1000 street northwest. The old assess
ment on this property was s., 800, and since
that time no Improvements have been made
on the premises. Yet Notwithstanding this
the returns for the new assessment show
the property to be assessed for 5000.
The matter was brought to the attention
of the Commissioners, and they sent it to
the assessor for a statement of the facts.
Assessor Trimble reported as follows:
THE return of the assistant assessors
shows that the figures $1,000 were placed
in the improvement column on their field
book opposite sub lot II, square 90, being
the property herein referred to and no de-
scriptior Is there given as to the nature
OF the improvements, whether brick or
frame, or one or two houses and in this
respect the assessment is defective and ir-
regular, which would have been promptly
corrected. no doubt had the attention of
said assistant assessors been called to it,
ihe board OF revision devoted all OF the
time allowed by law in adjusting land val
ues. as 1t was found impossible for said
ocard to personally inspect improvements
ana tnis with many other excessive val
ues escaped their notice. consider the
assessment FOR improvements on the lot
rererred to as defective and sufficient war
iant Tor valid adjustment, and 1 recon-
mend value OF s., 800 for assessment pur-
poses. AMI that the character and descrip-
ton of said improvements be properly noted
on the records"
The Commissioners sent all the papers in
the case to the attorney for the District
with the reques. that he submit an onin-
ION as TO the Commissioners right to change
the assessment. This he did today in an
opinion in which. after reviewing the case.
he says:
Defective and Excessive
The assessment complained of is defec-
tive IN this that 1t does not give any de-
scription as to the nature of the improve
ment upon the lot, and erroneous in that
1t Is grossly excessive l have no doubt
as suggested by Mr.. Trimble, that had the
attention of the assessors been called to 1t
In time they would have promptly correct
ed the error. but as the matter appears to
nave been an error in the assessment and
not clerical one in entering up the as
sessment upon the books in the assessors
ONCE. l do not see how. in view of section
IL of the act of 1883, which declares that
the valuation of the real property made and
equalized as aforesaid shall constitute the
OASIS or taxation for the next succeeding
period of three years, and until another val
uation Is made according to law the Com
missioners can do anything about it, The
case is one of great hardship and goes to
demonstrate that II was impossible for the
board OF assessors to do the vast work inn
posed upon them, namely: From actual
view to determine as nearly as practicable
ground in the District and separately esti-
mate the value of all improvements on any
tract or lot and note the same in his field
the value of each seuarate lot or parcel of
book, together with the dimensions of each
lot or tract. The board of eQualiza ton and
review, in the limited time allotted them for
performance n ~
TO the assessors report, devoted themselves
entirely to equalizing the value of lots and
parcels of land and paid no attention to
improvements.
The Commissioners POwerless.
"The act of 1888 provided for a board of
equalization and review, and this was the
only method by which one whose property
was enormously or unequally assessed might
have the error corrected and the tax, abat-
ed But this appellate tribunal in the sii0Ea
time allowed 1t was only able to review
land valuations, and that it did not have the
time to review the valuations placed upon
improvements by the board of assessors.
If this be true, of what use was the board
of equalization as to improvements? The
taxpayer in this case does not appear to
have appealed to the board of equalization
and review but suppose she had, what good
1t had not the tiJne to consider her case.
When the board Of equalization and review
closed its labors and the assessments pass
ed into the hands of the assessor, for en-
roiiment on the books of his office the right
to correction or abatement was lost. 1t then
remained only for the Commissioners to ac-
cept the assessments as legal and just, and
levy and collect the taxes accordingly
Courts. either of common law or equity,
are powerless," says Judge Cooley, in his
| treaties on taxation ed ed. p. 7iS), "to give
relief against the erroneous judgments OF
assessing bodies, except they may be
specially empowered by law to do So" And
this principle is applicable to statutory
boards, with certain appellate powers, but
whose action. Ii they keep within their juris-
diction, is conclusive, except as otherwise
provided by law" on page 7JO the learned
author proceeds, Tor a mere irregular as
sessment the statutory remedy is also the
exclusive remedy. 1t is supposed to be ade-
quate to all the requirements of Justice and
1t is the party's own folly If he fails to
avail himself Of it," The error complained
of in this case, is one of fact, and not of
law. On the face of the record no objec-
ton can be urged against the assessment
non constat, the improvements on this tax
payer S lot are not of the value of 5000 in
lawful money" But however that is.
eXtrtnsic evidence cannot now be received
to show that they are, or that they are not
1t is just as impossible for the Commission
ers to reduce an assessment as 1t is for
them to increase one. There should be per-
manent power in the assessor, after assess
ments have passed into his hands for en-
rOllment, to correct errors and ineuua n n ae