Vilas County news. [volume] (Eagle River, Vilas County, Wis.) 1896-1927, 1901-06-10

In the pamphlet of instructions to
assessors, to be issued in few days,
the state tax commission insists upon
all property being placed upon the
assessment rolls at its true value, &C
cording to the law, and intimates that
any assessor who is derilict in his
duty or violates the statutes in this
respect will be prosecuted.
After. devoting several pages TO
showing the evils of what it styles
the useless practice of underValua-
ton" and to demonstrating the Wis
dom of the law that all property shall
be assessed for taxation purposes at
full value, the commission says:
at is no more difficult, indeed it is
much easier, to follow the law than TO
violate it. 1t would seem that assess
ing officers would not hesitate to do
their work in full compliance with
law without being made subject to
liability for failure to do so; but now
that the legislature has enacted laws
making such officers liable to punish
ment, forfeiture and removal from Of
fee, and also subject to civil liab1l1-
tiles in damages, for violation OF Of
fetal duty it may reasonably be ex-
pected that the senseless and mis-
chievous practice of differentiation
will be abandoned by every assessor
in the state.
eff any shall persist in adhering to
such practice he cannot justly COM
plain if proceedings be taken to hold
him to such liability as may be in
Cured"
The pamphlet devotes considerable
space to the subject of valuation, say
ing in part:
'The correct valuation Of property
by assessors is of course of the most
vital Importance. 1t would be almost
waste of energy to discover and list
all taxable property unless correct
valuations are placed upon the same.
Failure to correctly value property
for taxation is the source of more in
Justice, complaint, and litigation and
more difficult in the work of town,
county and state boards of equaliza-
ton than any other fault or omission
in the administration of the tax laws.
The practice of assessing property
at less than it's value cannot be too
strongly condemned. From it spring
virtually all the evils of incorrect val
uations and inequitable apportion-
ment of tax burdens. 1t is of course
true. that an assessment made uni
formly at one-third or one-half or any
other fraction of full values could
work no injustice as between individ-
ual taxpayers in any one assessment
district. In some districts perhaps
this is accomplished as nearly as hui
man skill and judgment can ordinar-
lily approximate such result in the
time afforded for the work; and it is
doubtless attempted with varying
degrees of diligence and success in
many other districts. But in large
number of instances it would be diff
ficult if not impossible to discover
any uniform ratio or proportion be-
tween assessed and true values. 1t
is not believed that such conditions
are often due to intentional omission
Of duty or the part of assessors.
''The long continued practice Of
under-valuation has resulted in a
gradual and almost unconscious adop-
ton of arbitrary valuations or sets Of
valuations for assessment purposes
having little reference and no uniform
relation to true values. This comes
about in part from taking valuations
to some extent from former assess
ment rolls, comparing one item Of
property with another, which in turn
has been valued by comparison with
still another, and so on, without keep
ing in mind the true value or some
percentage of true value as fixed
standard. In this way great want of
uniformity may exist in the assess
ment of a single district without any
intentional wrong-doing on the part
Of the assessor.
Continuing the commission says:
"The only possible excuse for the
practice of differentiation is the fear
that the district if assessed at full
value will fare badly in the county
equalization and the county in the
state equalization. But danger of in
justice so resulting is more imagi-
nary than real. Perfection
can never be attained in any assess
ment or equalization. But it must be
apparent to all that the danger of any
assessment district or county being
= made to suffer by reason of an assess
ment at full value while others are
not so assessed, is no greater than it
would be under the old practice of
under-valuation, some districts at one
and some at another fraction of full
value and no two alike.
'It is of course recognized that alb
solute accuracy in assessment is
unattainable In the best assessment
some inequality may result from hon
est error in judgment or mistake OF
facts on the part of the assessor. 1t
is plain, however, that these are far
less likely to occur where the assess