The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1898-02-18
TRANSITORY LIVE STOCK.
LAW IN REGARD TO THE MAN
NER OF THEIR TAXATION.
Should Be Assessed In the County
Where the Owners Reside-opin-
ion Delivered By Assistant At
torney General Benner K. Smith.

A doubt has arisen in the mind of Coun-
ty Attorney Pike of Juab county as to the
construction to be placed on those provi-
sions of the revenue act pertaining to the
taxation of transitory herds of sheep, cat
tie and horses, and has propounded the
following queries to the attorney gen.
eral:
First-In the matter of assessing tran
silent herds, where the Oyners of said
herds are bona fide residents of a county
of this state, and where there is and can
be no claim by the assessor of any other
county of the state that said herds are to
be driven out of the state or otherwise
disposed of, in order TO avoid taxation,
and where said sheep herds either winter
or summer in the county in which the
owner resides, can said herds be legally
assessed by the assessor of any county
other than that in which the owner is
resident?
Seconds there any authority of law.
under the above state of facts. that will
warrant the assessor of any county where
such herds are transient, at the time of
making such assessment, in exacting or
eXtorting q not or other security from
the owners of said sheep for the payment
of the tax2
Third-Can a legal assessment of tran
silent herds, under any circumstances,
where the owners are residents of the
state. and where. as stated, there is no
attempt to evade taxation. be made prior
to noon on the hrst Monday of Feb
ruary?
ASSESS WHERE THE OWNER RE-
SIDES.
In reply to the first question. Deputy
Attorney General Benner Y. Smith, after
quoting the provisions of law applicable,
states his opinion 10 be that the stock
should be assessed in the county where
the owner resides.
Replying to the second and third que
ri ha q n
attention to the provision of the statute
which authorizes the assessor in assess
ing personal property TO act at any time
before the first Monday in February. in
case he shall have cause to believe that
the owner is likely to avoid payment of
the taxes by dispoSing OF the property, or
its removal from the county or state. but
in his opinion. this provision does not
grant authority for eXacting a note or Sc
curity for the payment of the tax, nor
can such assessment be made as of
date prior to the first Monday Of Feb
ruary-
SUPREME COURTS RULING.
Commenting further on the last two
propositions, the deputy attorney general
says that the supreme court of this state
has lately had the question of the power
OF the assessor 10 assess property prior to
the day upon which the general assess
ment is TO be made, and the opinion of
the court contains the following reference
to the facts upon which the county Off
GERS are authorized to act. The case is
that of Taylor VS.. Robertson, in which Mr.
Justice Miner uses the following Ian
guage: Such officer could hardly be said
to have cause 10 believe when he is sat
isfied that the owner will not dispose of
The property or remove it from the state,
TO avoid such payment. The assessor
should not assume that the fact of cause
existed when he knows or has good rea-
son to believe TO the contrary. The cause
to believe should be a good cause to be-
lieve. and based upon some fact within
mis- knowledge or upon some reliable in
formation that carries conviction to his
mind as an honest man, that the owner
Is nkely TO avoid payment of the tax by
disposing of the property or by removing
il from the state.