The San Francisco call., 1897-04-03
Method of Collecting Taxes
Diagnosed for the
Grand Jury.
The New System Costs This
City $4,000 More Than
the Old.
The Labor of Collecting Small Sums
Is Out of All p oportion to
the Amount.

Aurelius E. Buckingham, b. N. Hanne-
mann and II. w. Westphal. composing
the committee of the Grand Jury on the
lax Collectors Office, filed report with
the jury yesterday that presents striking
picture of the workings of the new law re-
= quirins the collection of personal prop
erty taxes on demand by the Assessor.
The law has been represented as clumsy
and cum bersome In its operations. but to
this criticism the committee gives figures
showing that it fails entirely of its aim 10
gather in more money than did the pre-
= vious law; that, instead. it is very eIpen-
sive and causes loss rather than gain. The
report is as follows:
SAN FRANCISCO, Cal, March o. 1897.
= To the Honorable Grand Jury of the City and
County Of San Francisco; In relation TO delin-
quent personal property taxes it appears from
investiga that he mum ber OF deltnque nts
w TO and including the fiscal year 1S94-95
averages about $500; that in the year
1S95-96 the number of the delinquents was
apparently reduced TO Ia, $50. This reduc-
ton is in reality not real one for the reason
that in the spring of 1895 the Assessor of the
City and County of San Francisco proceeded
Ito collect taxes under the revenue law passed
by the Legislature OF this State early in the
spring OF that year; that that law required
the Assessor To collect the taxes upon all per-
sonal property where, In his opinion, the
owner OF said personal property id not own
sufficient real estate TO guarantee the pay
ment of the taxes.
upon the Assessor in case he failed to collect
such taxes. AS q result great many CORPORA
tions which had been carried on the roll year
after year. and which had long ceased TO do
any business and had really gone out of exist
ence, were omitted from the roll of 1895 go
and which appeared on all former rolls. The
Assessor further omitted a number of persons
who might be called chronic delinqueuts-
that is, persons who have been assessed year
after year and had refused to pay their taxes
This, together with the fact that the Assessor
made very few arbitrary assess ments, accounts
for the apparent decrease in the number Of de-
linguents.
We wish to call your attention to the state
of affairs which is likely to exist in the COM
ing year. The rate on personal properly taxes
for this last fiscal year, to wit: 1S96-97,
was about 1 40 on hundred, while the tie
for the succeeding year Is reasonably certain
to be at least LAS. In 1862 there were,
an round numbers $1,000 taxpayers in San
Francisco, whose taxes were collected by the
Assessor. If the same number is collected
from for the fiscal year 1928 each of
the City Hall and pay the difference in the
rate, j. e., about 3 cents on each 800 of valu-
alton. In the fiscal year 1895 -96-the first
year in which this law was put force-sbout
$500 people became delinquent for the differ
ence caused by the change in rate from one
year to the other.
land there is every reason to think that it will
be larger), each person paying on basis of
SlUO In valuation would become delinQuept-
say for Gems. Five percent of that ust be
added at the latter part of Novem Der as q pen
atty. and Is per cent of the same 5 cents must
be added as penalty in the latter part OF
April. In June. this balance still Remaining
unpaid, it must by law be advertised, at a
charge of ID cents to each delinquent. The
law requires, further than this that postal
cards must bs sent 10 EACH taxpayer, notify
ing him OF the amount which is due from him
because OF the change in the rate from which
they have paid and which has been fixed
These postal cards must be sen out by the Tax
Collector some time along about the first OF
November. If the taxes are not paid The Tax
Collector must, about the first OF June. send out
another postal card notifying them of the de-
linquency and that the same must be paid.
The cost of postal cards on Scent delin-
9uency is OF itself, including printing, about
i. 2H cents. This, OF course, does not include
the clerical labor necessary to write out and
send these postals.
upon basis of 500 would become delinquent
for cents. to which penalty of 20 per cent
to wit, 1 cent, is added. This, when adver
tised, incurs a n additional expense of SO cents
ma ak1ng the charge upon person who tries to
pay his taxes 81 cents in order to pay cents
If this tsx is paid just prior to its advertise
ment, the City will actually lose four or five
times the amount of the tax in the cost of
carrying said amount on the books aud of
notifying the person of his delinuuency
In 1S94-95 almost nalf of the persons delin-
quentwe assessed for an amount under $1OO
According to the statements of the Auditor
II costs the City and County forty thousand
($40,000) dollars more to collect its taxes
under the present system than it did prior to
the enactment of the revenue law in 1895,
while the results are not in reality as good.
The amount OF personal property taxes paid
" to the Assessor of the City and County of San
Francisco is 40 per cent larger than the
amount paid in all the other counties of the
State The Assessors in other counties than
San Francisco retain, as compensation for
making such collections, 8 per cent and the
amount that would be- due TO the Assessor of
this City and County upon said basis would be
$4,000; 1t can easily be seen therefore, that
in saving to the City ana County if the Leg
.tslature of this State would allow this City and
County to collect its taxes as it formerly did
of some $35 900. and yet pay the commission
allowed the Assessors in all the 9th ,r,counties.