The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1897-01-14
TAXATION APPEALS
The State Board Kept Busy
Almost to the End of
the Fiscal Year.
ERRORS OF THE ASSESSORS
Cases Which Show Omissions and
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. Prop
erty Discrepancies.

EltF
The report of the State Board of Tax
alton has been issued within the last few
days. The following gives a clear account
of the workings of the Board
The report in its opening pages cites
the general rules of the Board regulating
the practice on appeal to the Board from
the action of the local boards, the pro-
visions of the act showing its jurisdiction
certain changes which nave been re-
Gently made In the laws relative to the
assessment of taxes. and a list OF the
cases heard at the meetings of the
board at the several county seats of the
State during the year. This list shows
that the board was kept busy up to with
IN a few days of the close of its official
year IN the hearing and decision CT APP
peals. Many of these cases involved
from twenty-five to forty separate pieces
OF property or assessments, and in cases
OF vacant lot property several hundred
separate assessments were reviewed UNI
DER the title of a single case. In many
OF the cases. the report states, the muni-
opal authorities and the appellants agreed
either before or during the hearing of
a case upon a valuation which would be
JUST from facts brought out upon inves-
tigation. and in such cases the action
OF the board was largely formal and adj
vlsory. Again. many of the
eases heard by the board involved
only the appellants right to have
the assessment appealed from reduced
and was, therefore, of little or no general
pubic interest. On the other hand, some
of the cases brought by individual an
peiiants involved something more than
the reduction OF. assessments. Two cases
are cited. by an illustration, in one of
which the appeals were made on the
ground that the appellants were assessed
relatively higher-at a higher standard
OF value-than other property owners In
the same taxing district. The evidence
showed that the assessor had made tn e
assessments at substantially 80 per cent.
OF true value, which had been approved
by the borough council, and that some OF
the appellants had been assessed at a
small percentage higher. The appellants
asked that either their assessments be
reduced or that all the other assessments
be raised. AS many of the taxes In
that taxing district had been paid when
the appeals were filed and the cases were
heard 1t was quite evident that neither
course would produce just results. More
over, the county in which the cases oc-
CURED had received its portion of the
State school tax from the other counties
IN excess of what it had raised for that
purpose. The Board holds, however, that
an assessment made and sanctioned as
the assessment in question had been,
upon a standard of one-third value, is an
injustice to the other taxing districts of
the county and to the other counties of
the State which are called upon to COLI
tribute to the State school tax This is
SO obvious hat it needs no argument to
enforce the truth of it.
The other case cited involved somewhat
similar principles. The appeal asked that
a new assessment be ordered. The evi-
dence showed many errors, some omis-
sions and a lack of uniformity, due some
what to the fact that the assessor had no
6Sem eon1d m map g,, q the T property by which
port argues, Illustrate sharply a lack of
uniformity in the tax laws-that Is, the
the assessments are completed and before
the taxes are paid for the board to cor
rect errors and wrong methods before
collectors: and, second ono the the b bonaI has IA me me
power to remove assessors who wilfuliy
and deliberately disregard the law by
purpose of Individual or political favor
1tism, or to cheat the other taxing dis
Irlcts IN the county on the county tax,
or the other counties in the State on the
The report broadly charges that in
many OF the taxing districts the assessors
the assessments at a STANDARD of value
less than true value, which in turn
max the tax rate higher than it other.
the taxing districts. principally in those
composed of the cities, inadequate or in
Hnee ;s1sla methods are taken by assessors
sonal property. subject to taxation which
praetlce, the report says, public opinion
IN those taxing districts seems to sustain.
rate higher and throws upon real estate
~ unjust BURDEN. 4 table, is append
s ss, this $40 charge sHsh 81 seems this IS
property in the several counties n1 p e 2
81 real estate ranges all the way from
~ IN Camden, 81 in Hudson, 81 in Ber-
gen; Il IS II IN Cap May and 81 in Atlantic,
PIP in Burlington, M.2 In Gloucester -
IN Cumberland, 1926 in Salem and Ar in
Hunterdon. These great discrepancies in
property IN the several counties shows he
yond any doubt, that a very large amount
OF personal property escapes assessment.
wne.ner by the concealment of. the owner,
py the ~connivance of the two parties ia
the transaction. The report puts If IN
the assessor, who, perhaps, is primarily
IL he were nOn6Stlv]
TO discharge the duties of his Office ac.
cording to his oath, could in most cases
easiiy ascertain, approximately at least.
the facts relative to the owpership az
the invisible personl property in his tax
ing district. To remedy this abuse il is
recommended that all the assessors he
made subject to removal by the board
after a fair trial.
Again the report states that the board
Is satisfied with its Investigations. that
the laws regulating deductions for debts
are very loosely administered, but wheth-
er from ignorance or carelessness it is
not prepared to say. In order to at least
In some degree limit the great amount
of ratables which in this way escape
taxation, the board has instructed asses
sors to allow no deductions either for In
debtedness or for property exempt from
taxation unless the person claiming such
deduction shall sign a statement in writ
Ing, and under oath, as required by the
statute.
Among the specific recommendations
made in the report are hat bank stock
&