The record-union., 1898-01-23
STATE CONTROLLER UPHELD.
ADVERTISING COSTS INCLUDED
IN THE PRICE.
Opinion Of the Attorney-Genera.
Regarding State Delinquent
Tax Sales.

The District Attorney of Los Angeles
County recently took issue with Con-
troller Colgan respecting the payment
OF costs arising from advertising no
tices of sale of lands which had been
sold to the State for the non-pay
ment Of taxes
Controller Coigan held that the cost
of advertising should be deducted from
the money paid in for the land, Whlie
the Los Angeles District Attorney held
that the costs ought to be taxed against
the purchasers.
The Controller submitted the point
at issue to the Attorney General, and
that he was upheld in his opinion the
following communication will show:
Jan Il, 1898.
Hon. w. F. Fitzgerald. Attorney Cen
eral. San Francisco, Cal.-Dear Sir: A
question has arisen regarding the intent
and meaning of the last clause of Sec
ton 3S97 of the Political Code. This
section was amended in 1895 (Stats.
1893. page $3.50, and again amended in
1897 (Stats. 1891 page 1850, and pro-
vides for the sale of property by au-
thority of the Controller which proper
ty has been sold to the State for the
nOn-payment of taxes, remains unrc-
deemed for a period Of five years, and is
decided to the State in accordance with
the provisions Of Section 31S5 of the
Political Code.
The latter portion of Section 1897
reads as follows: but no bid shall be
received or accepted at such sale for
less than the amount of all the taxes
levied upon such property, and all in
terest, cost, penalties and expenses up
TO the date of such sale. The expense
of y, publication of the notice herein
required shall be a charge against the
county" 1t is this last clause that
causes doubt.
l contend that the expense of adver-
tising the notice of sale should be
charged against the property as one OF
the expenses of the sale and must be
included in the amount bid for the
property; that the meaning Of the last
clause is simply that the bill for adver-
tising must be presented to and paid
by the county. and the treasury is af-
forwards reimbursed from the proceeds
of the sale.
I cannot think it was contemplated by
the Legislature in passing this law that
the county should lose money by the
sale OF property in this manner. as
would surely be the case. for in nearly
every instance the expense of advertis-
ing will amount to much more than is
received for taxes, etc.
In the case OF the publication of the
delinquent tax list the expense is born
by the county, but the Tax Collector is
required to collect lin addition to the
taxes due on the delinquent list %
cents on each lot, piece or tract of land
separately assessed etc. (Section 40,
Pol Code) This additional charge is
to cover the expense of advertising. and
is paid into the County Treasury to re-
imburse it.
| think my argument is strengthened
by the language of Section 1898, Polit-
ical Code. which is in part as follows:
THE Tax Collector shall deduct the
penalties, cost and other amounts re-
ceived as expenses attending such sale,
and the balance shall be distributed be-
tween the State and county" etc. The
penalties costs and other amounts to
go to the County Treasury just as in
the case of the 30 cents collected for
the delinquent list There are no
"other amounts" received as expenses
of the sale, except the expense of ad-
vertising.
This question has arisen by reason
of an opinion given by the District At
torney of Los Angeles County to the
Tax Collector, a copy of which l inclose
herewith. l had advised the Tax Col
lector to include in the amount neces-
sary to be bid the expense of advertis-
ing. The District Attorney advises to
the contrary. and the matter is re-
ferred TO you for decision Very re-
spectfully, T.. p. COLGAN.
Cont rolla,