The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-01-13

| statute millions of dollars worth of prop
erty Of telegraph companies that might
| haye been subjected to taxation by the
State of Indiana by proper legislation es-
capped taxation from the enactment of the
| tax law of 1872 to the enactment of the law
of March 6, 1S93 to provide for the taxation
| of property of telegraph, express and sleep
| ing-car companies. Buskirk, G. j., concur
red in the judgment in the case from Wnlcn
| we have just quoted, in a separate opinion,
| in which ne said I think the Legislature
| intended to provide for the taxation Of the
stock of the appellee, but failed to provide
the necessary machinery to effectuate the
purpose proposed. 1t is very manifest to me
| that the Legislature had no right to impose
tax upon the entire stock OF the company,
and, having failed to provide the proportion
ate part which should be subject 70 taxa
| ton in this State the assessment made cam
not be sustained
TT is conceded by the appellees that the
Legislature may, in the exercise of its SOW
ereign power, tax the citizens interest in
policy of life insurance ad valorem. What
they contend for is that life insuran ce poll
cies are of such nature, and the interest
Of the person insured or the beneficiary
therein named, is so contingent, so depend
ent, not only upon the methods and plan
of the insurer and his solvency, but upon
complicated mathematical calculations, to
determine the net value of his interest in
the reserve fund, that the ordinary methods
Of listing ana valuing property notes, &C
counts, shares of stock and the like are
wholly inadequate to secure a just valua-
ton thereof for taxation They say the ac-
ton of the State Board of Tax Commission
ers, in compiling and publishing tables, to be
interest of holders or beneficiaries of life i'm
surance policies, affords proof that the
methods or regulations for valuing property
on the schedule by the taxpayer and town
ship assessor are wholly inadequate to value
life insurance policies, or the reserve fund
value, or the surrender value thereof, for
taxation. This contention, we think, must
prevail. Because Section SO of the tax law
provides that the value, cash. value, true
value or valuation, whenever used in this
act shall be held to mean the usual selling
price at the place where the property to
which such term or terms are applied
the price which could be obtained therefor
at private sale and not at a forced or auc-
ton sale There is no such thing as the
usual selling or market price of paid-up poll
icies of life insurance, or partly pafd-up and
nonforfeitable life insurance policies at the
place where such policies shall be. And
there is such thing as price raid for
such policies at forced or auction sales
epe wbeS coud h be ee for such
policies at private sales. But the language
we have quoted evidently refers to classes
Of property which could be. exposed to
forced and public sales, and therefore 1T
seems unreasonable to suppose that the Ian
guage quoted was intended to include life
ASCERTAINING CASH VALUE.
''Bui assuming that the statute means
the cash value, and is broad enough to en-
brace life insurance policies, how is such
value to be ascertained without some meth
cd or regulation prescribed by law whereby
it can be so ascertained? That value de-
ponds upon so many conditions and contin-
gencies, such as the financial condition and
earnings of the company, condition,
knowledge Of which is more than likely not
within the reach of the taxing officer or the
policy holder, the legal effect of the contract
of insurance, and system OF complicated,
scientific mathematical calculations, known
only to special experts Certainly II there
is any property in all the wide world that
calls for and absolutely requires some flxed
method or regulation prescribed by law,
other than that provided tor ordinary ana
tangible property, by which to secure Just
valuation thereof for taxation, none stands
more in need of it than life insurance poll
s.The second objection urged to appellants
contention is of still greater force. 1t is
that the Legislature in the enactment or
the present tax law, by the language we
have quoted, did not INTEND TO include Ire
insurance tISns policies as SUBJECTS OF TAXA
''If the present tax law includes in the
words we have quoted life insurance policies
as subjects for taxation then every tax law
that ever was enacted under the present
Constitution has likewise included them, and
vet never before was it supposed that they
were so included. Such laws have uniform
ly been construed and acted upon as If they
were not intended to select such policies as
subjects for taxation, nor has any attempt
ever before been made by any OF the officers
charged with the duty of executing such
laws in this State to assess and value for
taxation such policies This is practically
conceded by the learned counsel for the ap-
FOR a period of over forty years the
several tax laws that have been in force
in this State, all of them practically the
same as the present one, as 70 ,i me cues, cues
ance policies as subjects for taxation nave
been uniformly acted on and construed by
tho thousandSNof officers charged with the
duty of executing them, and by the tens of
thousands of taxpayers, during that period
as. if they did not embrace or lnclude as
fov.f INV nnliriQG
ance. During all that time no taxing OIL
Ger ever attempted to assess them for taxa
ton and no policy holder ever placed any
such property on his schedule or list for
And during all that time we had highly
penal statutes in force against the fail
ure to list any property subject to tax
alton. And during all that time each
property owner was required by the sew
oath substantially that his schedule con-
tanned a full list of all his personal prop
all that time. no taxpayer was ever prose-
cuted for perjury in failing to place upon
his schedule life insurance policy though
there were thousands of such policy holders
among the taxpayers of Indiana.
INTENT OF LEGISLATURE.
''In order to ascertain the intention of
the Legislature the court should look to
the letter of the statute-to it as a whole,
to the circumstances under which it was
enacted, to the old law, if any, to the
mischief to be remedied to other statutes,
to the rules of the common law and to the
condition of affairs when the statute was
enacted.
Sutherland, on Stat. Con-, Sec. 81, says:
The contemporary and subsequent action
| of the Legislature in reference to the sub
| ject matter has been accepted as controlling
evidence of the intention Of a particular
| act Here, for a period of over forty
years, numerous tax laws in effect as broad
nj lDnQIIQUn
ployed Is to the property embraced as the
| tax law of 1891, had been constantly acted
| upon and construed by both officers and
| property owners as not including life insur-
| ance policies as subjects for taxation.
And the taxing officers and the tax
payers of the several States of the Union
| had construed similar taxing laws in sim
| liar way. Up to that time no attempt had
/ been made, so far as we are advised, by
any civilized government, either by legfs-
4 lative, executive or administrative action,
| to select and treat life insurance policies
| as property which ought to be taxed and
| subject them to taxation.
] These are the eircumstanc under which
| the Legislature acted in passing the law
| of 1891 The presumption is that these his
| torical facts were known to the Legislature.
| Therefore the Legislature, with know-
| edge that all the previous tax laws, prac-
| tically the same as the tax law 1t passed
| In 1891, had been construed by all the Of
| hcers charged with the execution, well
| as by the people affected by them, as not
! including life insurance policies. it would be
| most unreasonable TO suppose that the
| Legislature, by the use OF the words we
| have quoted from that act, intended to in
| clude such policies as subjects for taxation.
| But there is still a stronger reason for
| the conclusion that the Legislature did not