The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1899-12-17

of Property Owners Evading the
Payment of Delinquent Taxes Is
Not Feasible Nor Possible.
An article under the heading, "Win
Protect States Lien" purporting to con-
tain some ideas of County Auditor John
son on delinquent taxes and tax sales, APP
peared in the Pioneer Press of Friday.
1t is stated in unmistakable terms that
there is a leakage in the present method
by which the states claim for number
of years may lapse, and that the system
now in use offers many opportunities for
property holders to eVade the payment of
delinquent taxes.
IF Mr.. Johnson has been running his
Office on the lines expressed in the
Pioneers article he is certainly manifest
ing marvellous amount OF ignorance as
to the operations of the tax laws of
Minnesota" remarked a man familiar
with the working of the Office yesterday.
The following is stated to be Mr.. John
sons view of the subject:
Under the law, If private buyer pur-
chases q tax certificate at a sale and then
keeps up the taxes on the property for
subsequent years, these taxes are attached
TO the original judgment as Subsequent"
and no further sale is made. If the prop
erty owner does not redeem within three
year.; the buyers may obtain the regular
tax title to the property. The system of
subsequents' is provided for in section
1900 of the statutes.
This section does not apply in terms to
any taxes but those actually Sold but
Mr.. johnson believes that it does and
should apply to the taxes bid In for the
state as We'll. Under the present system
at the tax sale every year much of the
property is bid in for the state The re-
suit is that the state often loses its taxes
For instance. The taxes on a certain
piece of property are not paid for a num-
Der of years and are not actually sold at
the annual sale. They are bid in for the
70 state. Then at q subsequent sale some
purchaser buys certificate for taxes de-
linquent that year. He holds this certif-
icate and pays taxes for three years fol-
lowing, all OF which are allowed as Sub
sequents.' Then he gets title to the prop
erty under the law. The state sells him
the property But the state receives moth
ing for all the taxes that accrued before
the purchaser bought his first certificate
The present system gives chance for
COLLISION and fraud Suppose there are
hVe years taxes against certain piece
owner can come in, purchase a certificate
at a sale, have the next three years taxes
added as ''subsequents, obtain tax
title and transfer it to the ORIGINAL owner
Then the original owner has his property
again and has escaped paying five years
taxes on it. This is only one possibility
of the present system.
Mr.. Johnson's theory is that the law
was not made for the benefit Of the deal
ers in tax certificates at the expense of
the state, and he proposes to apply the
doctrine OF 'SubseQuentS' to taxes bid in
for the state, believing that if the right
to do this is not absolutely expressed in
the law, that was the intention and will
be upheld by the court.
If this plan is carried out no one can
OBTAIN tax title to property without set
thing for all the taxes that remain unpaid
against 1t. Instead of buying at the auc-
ton the certificates can be obtained only
by assignment by the state and assign
ment can only be made in case all the
taxes standing against the property are
paid.
Now tax certificate simply operates as
deed from the state to the holder OF the
certificate and does not actually pass the
title until recorded the same as any
other deed. To go on record 1t must pass
through the county treasurers Office.
where the stamp Taxes of current year
paid must be affixed, and also through
the county auditors office, and that Off
cial must certify to the payment Of all
taxes of prior years. In the case OF
tax certificates the auditor certifies
Taxes paid by SALE, in the same man
ner as on warranty and quitclaim deeds,
to indicate that the state has received
the money for certain taxes by sale of
the tax judgments to actual purchasers.
When the property is bid in for the state
at tax sale it is simply for the purpose
of securing the states lien, that the doc
ument may be assigned after the sale or
that 1t may be sold as forfeited taxes
after the expiration of the period of re-
demption. These judgments remain in
force until assignment OF the states in
terest or sale of the property, after due
nf +J,o
county auditors, unless satisfied by ac-
tual payment of taxes, penalties, interest
and costs.
The intent of all the laws governing the
collection of taxes is to enforce the pay
ment by every piece of property of
proportionate share of the amount neces-
sary to be raised by taxation for the ex-
penses of the government; each descrip-
ton Of property owes its share to the
state, and the statutes now in force fully
provide for every contingency. All that
is required is that they be interpreted in
diligently.
The one point in Mr.. Johnsons ar
ticFe, 1t is claimed, worth considering is
the advisability of adding subsequent de-
linquent taxes to a previous tax judg-
nent IBID in for the state;" this point is
neither original nor novel, and has most
| probably been considered by each and
1T is very pretty theory, but when 1t
| came to practice each auditor concluded
that 1t would be better and safer to &C
Quire successive judgments" remarks the
/ q b informant. A little eXplana-
ton on this point will undoubtedly be ap-
preciated by the present auditor To
/ make it very clear consider the case of
! the holder Of a tax certificate for one
! year; when a subsequent tax becomes
! delinquent mot before), the certificate
j holder may pay the tax In question and
| have the amount added, or tackled on, -
| to the amount OF his certificate, drawing
! interest on the same at the same rate
| as on the original judgment, from the
date of such payment. This subsequent
tax may be paid and credited any time
j after the first Monday of January when
the tax becomes delinquent
! Now III case the auditor decides to add
! the subsequent delinquent tax to the
/ judgment bid In for the state, the cues
! ton is, when should the entry be made
and the interest commence to run on the
subsequent tax. Naturally it must be
between the first Monday of January and
the date on which the taxes which &c
into judgment would be sold; the Ian
guage of the law governing this point
| states distinctly that the interest shall
run from the date of actual payment OF
| the subsequent delinquent tax, and, as q
| matter of fact, that makes no actua
! money payment of the tax. It might be
! the auditors opinion that he could ado
| the amount OF subsequent tax on either
Of the other two dates, namely, the date
| of judgment, or the date of sale of the
| property which Wen: into judgment fol-
the same year. But this brings up an.
other point; if these taxes are to be-
| o6 RI hn