New-York tribune., 1901-04-06
FIRE INSURANCE MEN PROTEST.
DECLARE DECISION TAXING THEIR UN-
EARNED PREMIUMS UNJUST.

flre insurance and casualty companies expressed
yesterday their disapproval the recent decision
of the Court of Appeals in placing their unearned
premiums upon the assessment rolls subject to
taxation. The secretary of an important casualty
company said that his concern would be forced to
pay a tax upon what it did not possess
The reserve for unearned premiums he de-
clared. forms the largest single item in our
liabilities almost one-haIf of the total amount In
1901 We shall write 100000 in premiums IL
We do not write one dollars worth after 1901 it
VIII be well along to the close of 1902 before all
these premiums will be earned up. or until they
become our property. Our unearned premiums are
made It liability by law. They are represented by
stocks or bonds in possession, which last year
formed one-half of our total assets So I suppose
the city Will tax us on these stocks and bonds as
an equivalent of personal property
IL may happen that a large number of premiums
on our policies in force are still unconected. The
injustice Of the tax is that we must pay for what
we do not or may not possess. Many policies might
be cancelled In that case part of the premiums
could be collected"
Elijah r. Kennedy of Weed &, Kennedv NJ 90
Lhberty-st- said that the taxing OF unearned pre-
miuns was manifcsty unjust
insurance companies have claimed exemption
from local municipal taxation Of their unearned
premium fund on the general principle that Just
debts and liabilities are not taxable he con-
tinued. Years ago the question was foupbt our
all the way to the Court of Appeals by the Glens
Fails Insurance Company and decided in favor of
the companies That is the law of the State to-
day. as adjudicated by the highest court
FOR about three years lately the Tammany
assessors have endeavored 10 reach out and tax
these unearned premium funds. They assessed one
surety company and fire company The case
OF the surety company not clear as it would
have been with fire company. and the city author
tiles were shrewd TO take the case of the surety
company up the Court of Appeals and not take
the of the fire company, The Court of Appeals
decided that the fund of the surety company might
be taxed. and now IL would appear that Judge
Leventritt has assumed that the same principle
would be applicable to the case of a fire company
The case, however. will, of course be promptly
appealed.
The assumption Of Corporation Counsel Whalen
that the approval by the higher courts Of Judge
Leventritts decision would put s2OOO00OO0 of prop
erty the rolls Is preposterous Property to
that amount is undoubtedly involved in the ques-
tion. but If the fire and other insurance companies
should find out that the Court of Appeals would
reverse its decision in the Glens Falls case so many
years ago, they would merely have to sell the
spending amounts in securities exempt from taxa
tion. They would, of course. do this which would.
them of about per cent or, possibly, II. per cent
in the interest earning capacity of the non-taxable
would be very much better than to retain the ;ax-
able securees earning per cent to IA per cent
compelled TO pay the local tax rate of from per
The folly and vexatious character of the Tam
many proceeding against the insurance companies
men concerned in it knew anything about business
they would see that the consequence of their action
would be either to have the courts decide that
they were wrong and that the companies are
on this amount or else that they will become prac-
ucaliy exempt on this amount by investing II in
the law, for instance city bonds State bonds
and United States bonds. II should be borne in
this tax, and therefore that ii will be no loss to
the city TO have this amount continue exempt from