New-York tribune., 1901-11-21
SPECIAL TAX EXEMPTIONS

A sarnpYhat unexpected but not necessarily
unfortunate sequel 10 the adoption OF the new
constitutional amendment is threatened by a
recent decision of the Court of Appeals 1he
amendment prohibiting exemptions from taxa
ton hereafter by special law was presented TO
the people with the statement that IL in no
way interfered with existing exemptions by
sneciaI act but merely required that any future
exemptioRs must be made in general terms
sppIieable to a class of persons or institutions
That was perfectly true. ANY present legal
sxemntisn still exists. Bnt, curieusly enough,
inst ene week after election, almost-though
doubtless without any such intenton-as if to
clear the ground once for ali of these inequali-
ties af taxation that under the amended con
stitutien can never be restored, the Court OF
Anpeals by vote of four to three declares that
sill sneciai exemptions which were supposed TO
exist were in fact repealed in 1876 Ihoueh
this repeal occurred five years ago, 1t was never
discovered until now, when it is too late TO
re-enact the special privileges, and assessors
have been for all this time granting exemptions
inst as if the old private laws We're in force.
This interesting finding was made in the case
entitled In the Matter of Huntington, by which
Roosevelt Hospital and the Chidrens Ala Socl-
ETY. sought to secure a bequest without paying
the transfer tax, on the ground that though the
,utions exempt from ordinary taxation under
the general law of 1896, they were freed from
its provisions by the exemptions of their special
charters granted prior to 1896. Judge Landon,
writing the opinion. in which Judges Bartlett,
Martin and Vann concur, reverses the Appellate
Division in the First Department. which sus-
tained their contention. and holds that they are
subject TO the transfer tax, on the ground that
the general revision of the tax laws made IN
1896 superseded all special acts of exemption
either in harmony or inconsistent therewith,
and therefore as it operated against those insti-
tutions exempt by general law from ordinary
taxes n must operate against those institutions
whose special exemptions had been superseded
by the general law. Judge Landon says:
In our opinion the legislature intended by
the Tax law OF 1896 TO provide, pursuant to the
constitution for this particular class of inlmuni
ties from taxation, and to cover, as the act con-
stituting the Commissioners OF statutory Re
vision required. the whole field of the collection
and assessment of taxes and exemption Of
property from taxation throughout the State, .
far. at least, as their view OF the subject
extended.
This decision is binding only with respect to
the particular state of facts involved. 1t de-
clares that the transfer tax of 1900 Is TO be
levied according to its own terms against insti
tutions regardless of their previous exemptions
The principle, however, as noted, has a much
broader application, and If the Court of Appeals
follows it in dealing with exemptions from the
general property tax all special privileges will
be abolished. Speaking of the scope Of the law
of 1896 the majority opinion says
The general rule of the liability taxation of
all property within the State was preserved, and
the exemptions classified In such comprehensive
phrase as to make all prior private and special
exemptions unnecessary. far the general
ac. conferred the same exemptions the spe-
ciai and private acts and repugnant and incon-
sistent so far the special and private acts
conferred greater immunities and exemptions
than the general act.
There are on the statute book. enforced I'D
to the present time, various acts which come
within Judge Landon's rule of repugnance and
nconsistence, inasmuch as they do confer
greater immunities and exemptions than the
general act. Section 4, Subdivision T. of the
General Tax law provides:
The real property Of corporation associa-
tion organized exclusively for the moral or
mental Improvement of women, or for
religious, Bible. tract charitable. benevolent