New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1897-07-08
CAPITAL STOCK EXEMPT.
JUSTICE CULLEN DECIDES TAX
POINT IN FAVOR OF CORPORATIONS.
FRANCHISE OF A BROOKLYN TROLLEY COMPANY
NoN-TAXABLE AssET-oTHER STOCK
COMPANIES INTEREsTED-THE AS


SCISSORS DEFEATED.
Three decisions which we're given by the APP
peate Division OF the Supreme Court yesterday
are likely TO settle the question or assessments
on the capital stock OF certain corporations In
this city. For some time the assessors nave as
sessed the capital stock Of these companies, ana
In each case writs Of certiorari have peeh oo-
tained and the assessments set aside. The as
declared that they were right. however,
and that they would persevere in their endeavors
10 make the corporations pay up. even II 'he'
had to carry every case to the Court OF Appeals.
So many defeats. however. and the language vi
Justice Cullen In the opinion given yesterday
should have some effect and It Is probable that
In future. unless the law is changed. the great
corporations in this city will have no more legal
expenses to pay in order to avoid heavy assess
ments on their capital stock. Justice Culiens
opinion is written in the case OF the brookIyh
City Railroad Company. which was one OF the
hardest fought Of all the cases. In part ne says:
This controversy proceeds from the struggle @ inat
still exists by the boards OF assessors OF vartom nr
cities 70 continue to TAX ine ba far Generally il not
Uniformly prevailed throughout the Stats nhl rinn @
Trust COMPANY v Coleman u?6 y y. ~ tt9tn anu
the various cases in the Court oi hppttHis bn Inon
me decision Before the decision oil me N.Y. ,y
Trus, Company case 1t had been the RUE WIN cnr ar
assessors where the shares OF tne os cop-
poraton sold above par, to rea r ma had rot been
elusive evidence tha; tho capital STOCK na % - rer
s5nay 10 deduct only lis real estate me amour; a1d
OF stock held by them In othsr III liter
ary or and ceemosynary Institutions. The decision
cited overthrow this rule and worked, a1 Hs
extent m Of their liability lora tax ,tiGn ,se Ine
capitalization Of corporations and 'ne on their
earning power In the Union Trust n9mpanf ip, ~ con-
IL Md,in in assessing the corporation out that
was he assessed only for actua' c"p'''' Recently
ery owned bSs by ,m agan come before colr! Of
Appeals and again he lay has neeh "esessed for
taSatlon il Is therefore. noT settled am ane sub
corporations have two classes OF nr who'll exempt
rcm To, This icing the law there should no longer
e any attempt the 10 "E%9 s it . Ga a. e1S
favor IT, il 1t be unjust the only r ree fGr il Is un-
ppnestIonobIv within the power OF the L.ee@lsia @ nuh
subject this character Of property h 10 i thn State
hss ,n bear burden which for over forty year,s yn,
corpora tions have borne wthout ca.m % NOT Imposed
and without sugges'io" '"'' -
on them by law
DISTINCTION OVERLOOKED.
Tho return of the relator and the statement were
TO the effect that the capital stock OF 'he
,,on was s12 COO 100 and was all PAID IN 'h"' ,'
actual value of all the assets OF the corporation
was ssO7a27l 50: that the assessed vaue OF i's ie
os,ate Including It's tracks was s541l5o. ana tnat
,ts Indebtedness was s6925N0 The sum oi h these Sc
last Two items which tne ne ire aSsets is ,ia
The result is that the reator ; PIop''G =, Gyond bc
ss s IS below ne pTnf for al peTsonay the
market value OF the shares or s,Icf orrs I'M - Of the
Si ihe Thesc show that the stock sells above lSo
It is insisted the statement that the m obRey eomRany
n a not f 10 he credited the face of the fact that the
value Of the whole STOCK frc efceeSs e fS Argument, and
would be unanswerable were " not Dorne II, ssa,s @
the distinction between the two KINDS OF so ooo
oil he O
II would be incredible that any amount on Would
make the stock of the company worth in excess OF
t2OWoOOO But there is another asset OF tne COIL
and which as We have already seen under ,r, tne
authorities the law does not require II 10
railroads On some sixty miles OF the streets OF the
city of Brooklyn This asset may be OF sIi rrs for
the stock of the relator than that when now now % To
tains We are OF the opinion therefore tna' iie
Special Term properly vacated the assessH'h''
THE BOOKS NOT EXAMINED.
We think that the order directing a reassessmsnt
also was properly made The relator borrowed
81 OO0 some few years ago. The assessors asKen
for the details OF the expenditure OF that sum Ihis
the witness was unable to give, but referred the
assessors to the books Of the corporation which S
company were not In fact produced These me the
entitled TO examine to see how 'he
cap,tal OF the corporate and money borrowed py
IL were expended. because the details or such ex
rn4Tes not msni rstnrned to the the The
dent Of the reator is hardly subject TO criticism IN
NOT producing the books. because there seems 70
ha been no subsequent application for them Ihe
matter seems 10 have been left inchoate and unde-
termined We therefore think II wise that there
should be a rehearing before the assessors on
which they may probe the returns OF the company
10 any further extent that they may desire ana
obtain any further evidence TO the assets OF the
corporation But the assessment must be iaid IN
accordance with the law and the fact that the JUS
tce or the favor OF the statutes OF the state. as
construed by the courts. renders this relator subec.
10 local taxation on some s. 100000 and exempts II
from taxation on sl5 900 does not Justify an
ttempt 10 value class OF property as part
of The former The order appealed from should be
affirmed without costs to either party.
The other two cases in which the order vacat-
ing the assessment capital stock OF corpora
tions is affirmed the Edison Electric Light
Company and the Malcom Brewing Company.
THE PFV STEPHEN H. CAMP STRICKEN.