The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-02-14


eaaehod with thine years to Except crown lands area
not an9 2444 aeresof which under cultivation IN 1899
and It has the privilege under its lease OF greatly tn
area upon the payment OF liked pe1cenge 2, Tue sugar w
dnd II is shown that January 1900 S222 81 per share
was offered for its stock 1927 so was asked That IN July
1899 1000 shares Of stock purchased at $225 to $4
per share which taken to San go ana mace Tue @
oany that the par of these shares was $780, and that
they were selling the open market Tor from $40 TO $40 per
share. The net profits of the appellant company
For the year 1887, were SS4o,ooo 20
For the year 1898, - ooo,ooo 90
For the year 1885, were ooo,oioA 20
An average net yearly profit for said period Of
The dividends aid for the 1899 were 81 per cent OF Id
per cent less than oneh of the entire capital stock OF the
company.
Mr. Justice Frea speaking for the Supreme Court OF the
Republic of Hawaii said: 1The tax IN question Is not an
tax depending amount the Tor the
year preceding but property the earning power OF
which is one the potent factors IN determining Its
value.' II Haw. 238-
The earning power of the Hawaiian Sugar Company
ainly very great and ample justify the valuation placed
by the and approved BY the lax Appeal Court
This much reluctantly admitted BY the appellants principal
witness, the manager of the company as ssss
Mr. Morrison on cossexamnation after being cautioned by
for the to all speculative features from
his estimates value of the stock January 1900 tes
fed as follows:
$500.
O. What would you consider, if buyings
A. [ consider 5000. big price,
O. For the that sells?
A. If he buys for $780, he is getting things on go9d
reasonable figure.
O. Considering the dividends they are paying do you con
slider $3.50. an excessive price for the stock!
A. consider it (fair) market price for the stock Page
SO, Transcript of Evidence)
The valuation placed the property by the and
claimed by appellant be excessive estimates the stock at
s175 per share than the of the panta
ton wears fair market price Under this evidence the
valuation 100000 less than the ta market price
of the property.
One by the appellant considering this val
nation excessive that increase of 40 per cent over
that for the preceding year, and that the company only had "
of planted in 1900 than in 1899 1t seems
this position counsel that the valuation OF the
for the year 1899 correct one hls assumption
is denied by the assessor And that there good
believing that the valuation of this property Tor the
year 1899 under its "full cash value"
The APPELLANT has failed show that the valuation OF
0Oo approved by the Tax Appeal Court excessive, and its
appeal is therefore dismissed and that said valuation Tor the
year 1900 is affirmed
M r. Prosser and w O. Smith for appellant.
Holmes &C Stanley for Tax Assessor.
DISSENTING OPINION OF PERRY.
I respectfully dissent.
To the of facts contained in the foregoing opinion
NAV be added the following concerning the property IN qes
ton: cropped 1897 1924 IN 1893 1902 acres
and in 1899 Yield of the plantation acre. IN
1899 81 Total production, 1885, l40o tons; IN
1897 II 934 tons; in 1885, TONS and in $780, 16205
tons The unexped of the lease of the lands owned by
the seventeen years The supply OF water IN
present main ditch decreased somewhat during the three
wears next preceding the assessment but abundant
available from upon further outlay for dtche ETC.
Assessment for 1898 117100O for 1892 S25ooooo
Dividends paid in 1897 S1o00oO 1898, S4s4s4o.; 1872
1926 Average dividends for three years. Sooo3oo ana
for 1898 and 1899, $405 000
In my opinion the valuation of the property IN question Tor
the year should upon the evidence be placed at three
million dollars.