Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1898-07-15
May CAUSE LITIGATION
m Opinion Which Might furnish Much Work
Tor The Lawyers
The ATTORNEY GENERALS RULINGS


An opinion was promulgated from
the attorney generals onlcc today
which Will hu 90 Interest e. taxpayer
generally. aud whleh may lead 10 some
litigation. ~ De- addressed tl thH state
hlal Hf equalization, ana lin salient
points arc HH follows!
"Yu ark DO b. advised MS 20 whether
you hYH power lf necessary iur Co.,
purpose vi equalization. either tl fulHn
lr lower ihH uttl valuation uf a. utr-
fItulIr ullHH uf uuu rv Zoo a county
lrr ihe Same has h.ou nNad by ihF
county board AMI 1HfHaHlr You have
directed my attention DO tho Uruylflluu
uf aICtiun .ts1 r. ~, which provided
That. when after a. general luvrHlgI-
lion uf th. board the prIp riy a found
90 hU HHaUHHDd ur hUilw its fuii ct.h
value. tho board may. without notice.
HI determine and must Idl 3d. ur de-
duct from thH value VI thH real estate.
improvements on much real estate and
personal property. except money Furh
percent respectively na u sufficient 20
and AK whether unlrr the provisions
" this Hfcilln you would have Tho
power 90 raise or lower the valuation
M uUll estate 10 n city or town without
raising nr lowering as the cas- might
h0, me valuation NJ acreage or farm
ufuuHttNt
"aocord' A. a. whether ar not YOU
have the power o. raise or lower. As
might ha found necessary Tor the pur-
poses az equalization, a particular glass
NJ ncrnuuh property SUCH ~ HhOgu
without Affecting The valuation NJ nxrd
ly the county board and county 49,.
HnHtnr NJ other classes ~ pttfonhl
property"
Tho attorney general then reviews at
..H HH.H D.
lng ON the subject quotes tho state
supreme court decision In the ease NJ
salt Lake city 80 Armstrong. and ~.
ter oAprg frlng the view that tho su-
prcfne court dIl not Intend 90 restrict
The state hIlrl Hu that n could not
raise or lower the assessment OF ono Or
more classes ~ property concludes hy
rhylnEi go
~ The board sh1uli determine that
rli rstltr in any county which had
been divided into two classes. that o.
acreage ur farm property ami town lniH
ur rliy property uH "a clearly gHntHm.
plated I'm section .lsi, that either ~
these clnHa'H hud boon properly valued.
while the other had mot. That n could
raise or lower tho clnsHoH nl erroneous.
ly nHHofrad without changing tha yhinl.
ton NJ che particular class or Huhil.
Nlrlnn thIt Ina been properly assessed. [
again, ~ personal property has boon
classified ana horses Included IN ono !
class ana sheep Iu another and tho /
state board should ana That m ahcgp |
wore nsdcsscd 600 hlFh 0r Roo low while !
hIfaeH had been PROPERLY yHlued. I !
think n would be- entirely competent 1
tur rho hn1fi ip raise nr lower tho val. |
uaiInn M sheep 'u ihH particular cnun. |
~ IN which such error hlf boon made |
without chlnHInr Gao valuation " tho !
other subdivision or subdivisions ~
Drly RssrHrHi nut nH pninted nttt In
this clr' before raising ur lowering
valuation M any oi tho three classes or
any m th' subdivisions thereof the
board should mt determine that the
nihHr rlH had been properly valued
ami l'HI how much the class proposed
lu hH rIH"1 ~ lowered ne the clre
m.shi h. should be- ru raised or love
rr"l In order in mako u conform 10
The require mCnts ~ law"