The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1901-11-29

hence. NNf ffNeff'H OF iN' tlHi'N NFfAh'
themselves consented 60 an assessment %
itpl before fhc Tax Appeal Court In
Hnf opinion On may safely De- placed at
f-'s' Till would hu Jess than So plus
a .un Ihuf would at seven pct cent come
pound Iut..t.t amount to t-t..n iu TWEEN.
t,..Iu Ntgrs. thst BEL. tho present value
uf s-a. H To- hn received at tar end ot
tY.ufr-ouo years. 1iscounti1g 90 the rate
tf setr1 per cent per anuum. compound
interest
counsel FOR the assessor urge. however.
that the owner cannot set up the fact
that there IL an outstanding lease for "a
long term atsa low rental fcr tho reason
that the lease was not mentioned In the
returns The statute requires that the re-
turn shall be made In the month OF Jan
uury. and that 10 sha cnumcratc among
other things all leases with the names
and residences Of the persons TO whom
ne leases are made (Civ. l.. Sec. SOD,
and provides (Scc. SGD that II any person
shall refuse or neglect to make said re-
turn, etc, the assessor may make the
assessment according TO the best infor-
nation within his reach, and the some
shall be conclusive, and not subject to
appeal. /; appears that the return was
made within the time prescribed by the
statute, and that the land In question
was described therein but mention was
but the assessors predecessor gave fur
Their time for the filing of a schedule of
the leases of the estate, and such
schedule was prepared and handed to
him in the month of May, and was ac-
cepted by him as one of the documents
to go with the return, but the present
assessor did not know of this. The as
SCISSOR then found this schedule, and pro-
duced 1t before the Tax Appeal Court.
The person making the return should
take care that he complies with the stat
ute and properly describes his interest
in the property. 1t may be that the re-
turn blanks furnished by the assessor
should be more explicit. The only COL
umn provided in those blanks for descrip-
tons of leases by landlords is that which
is headed Description and Situation of
Land and Improvements" There is no
specific reference to leases or special in
terests in land. But If a person omits to
properly describe his interest in a tract
of land, he cannot complain If the as
SCISSOR assesses him as sole owner In the
absence of other information as to out
standing leases or other interests. on
the other hand 1t is to be observed that
even when a person refuses or neglects
to make any return whatever, the asses
sor cannot act arbitrarily or capricious-
ly. He must make the assessment "ac-
cordng TO the best information within
his reach" His valuation, even though
greatly excessive, may not be subject to
appeal, but there may be other remedies,
in case 1t could be shown that he had
acted fraudulently or caprcously or
with gross carelessness, and not accord
ing to the best information within his
reach. 1t may be a question how far the
requirements of the statute can be waiv
ed by the assessor. 1t Is clear that there
are some provisions that he cannot
waive, as, for instance, that which adds
ten per cent. to the tax after 1t becomes
delinquent But there would be nothing
to prevent him from using, In making an
assessment, any information that might
be furnished him by the taxpayer after
the time limited for making the return,
and, in our opinion, If the taxpayer acts
in good faith, makes a rturn and Is
ready and willing to furnish further in
formation, the assessor expressly gives
further time for furnishing such infor-
nation and 1t Is furnished and accepted
by the assessor. the latter cannot be per-
mitted afterwards to set up that the tax
payer had not fully complied with the
statute in the first instance. The statute
must be construed reasonably ard with
view to carrying out the prob
able intention of the legislature. The
Legislature apparently inserted the
penal provision in question mainly to
prevent fraudulent Or wilful or grossly
| careless violations Of the statute. and not
to impose unnecessary hardships on
those who endeavor in good faith to COM
ply with the statute. 1t inserted the pro-
vision as to returns and what should be
stated therein in order that the assessor
might have the requisite information for
making the assessment. In this instance
he had just the information he desired
and in manner and at lime that was
satisfactory to him, and which led the
taxpayers to understand would be salts
factory. But for his action in granting
| further time, the taxpayer misht have
furnished the list of leases withia the
time named in the statute. See New
Canaan VS.. Hoyt, % Conn, las; Dwell vs.
County Commissioner, Allen, 546;
Sharpe VS.. Engle, .. Okl.. GA.
| The decision of the Tax Appeal Court
assessing the lot on Union square at $780,
600 is affirmed, and that assessing the
appellees interest in the lot at Pawaa at
sessed at 1850.
(signed) w. T. FREAR.
C. A. GALBRAITH,
A. PERRY.
ROBERTSON & WILDER,
For the Assessor.
HOLMES & STANLEY,
For the Bishop Estate.
The decision as to Emily X. Mehr-
tens appeal is as follows:
Under our statutes, one who returns
lara for assessment purposes as sole
owner, without mention of a lease to
which II Is subject, cannot on appeal set
up the lease to show that he had a less
interest than that returned
OPINION OF THE COURT.
By Frear, c. ].
This is an appeal by the Tax Assessor
from the assessment of the Tax Appeal
Court of a lot in Honolulu having a
frontage of 345 feet on Alakea street, 3.
feet on Queen street, and 81 feet on Ha-
lekauila street, and an area of 1885,
square feet. The lot is subject to lease
made in January, 1895, for fifteen years
at an annual rental of $500. 1t seems not
TO be disputed that the lot, If unincum-
bered by the lease, would be worth $685.