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

APPEAL FROM TAX ArrEAL CouEr, ISLAND OF OAHU
SUBMITTED DECEMBER 81 1900 DECIDED JANUARY 49, 1901
FREaR, GU, GALBRA1TH AND PERRY, j.
proper appeal merely
vicinity have
having acted in
having assessed other property in general at lower
the full of at least 5000 but leased
month under lease about to expire should not
eighyear
testify unfair unjust" Civ. L. Sec 800
OPINION OF THE COURT BY FREAR CT
This an appeal from the assessment Of the business lot and
building the westerly of Fort and King Streets and
residence lot and building the southeastey side of Miller
street. in the city of Honolulu
The first mentioned property returned $4,000 The
Assessor assessed it at $50 600 The Tax Appeal Court u
tanned the Assessors valuation Taxes paid compo
valuation S27 the year before The
question that for January 1900 At that time the property
under lease rental of S166 SO month for
the first five years. and 1856 the last five Years The lease
would expire in about year There evidence tending
show that lease desired $500 month"; but that the
appellant declined make lease until the expiration Of
the old In the early part of the year previous responsible
party wished buy the property for $4,000 This party
testified that the value had increased by January 1900 The
appellant replied that he would not sell for $4,000 He test
fed that he valued the property at between $4,000 and
$S0000 The lot about thirty three feet square, according
witness and about 325 81 according another, and
covered by twostory building 1t perhaps valuable
there is in the city, centrally located and at the
uncture of the The lot adjoining
Fort street, which slightly larger than this but
lot sold in the early part OF the year previous for
$3O000 and assessed January 1900 at OO0 The
frontages of number of other properties in the vicinity
and the placed thereon for the date well
for the previous year, put evidence namely, the
property adjoining Fort street already mentioned the Hall
Austn opposite the Mcintyre dagonaly opo
Site the Levers Cooke Ausn) property adjoining the Hall
property Fort street. the Brewer property the of
Fort and Hotel Streets the Motmh property another
of the streets the McInerny Cummings Judd and
Campbell properties the four of Fort and Merchant
Streets the last named property also extending down Fort and
around the Queen street. the Sprecke property com
prsng of the block bounded by Fort Queen Aakea and
Merchant Streets the Mott Cunha WALL Nichols CO.. and Won
properties King street. fort and Bethel
Of these be not materially out of
portion the placed the property question 50
far Judge from the meager facts before us while
others appear to be low compared with this assessment
some of them glaringly
The Civ t. s20 provides that call real and
sonal property shall be assessed for its
full cash Value with proviso that combined properties shall
be assessed whole and further provso that when any
real house leased rented the of eight years
thereof shall be the value of such real estate
house, unless such valuation shall be manfesty unfair or
unjust"
valuation eight years rental in this would be mani
festy unfair and unjust 1t would $1760 Such
apt be the with property leased years ago at
smaller than be obtained especially if the lease
about expire Since them this does not fall within the
proviso which pescbe the eigtyear rental method must
be governed by the rule which requires the property
be assessed its full cash value and say the e
denee that full cash value less than 000 the amount
at which it assessed.
The question whether the appellants property Is assessed
high, whether other properties assessed too
low If appeared that other properties generally assessed
lower rate it might be proper this at the same
But cannot reduce the assessment in this merely
because some other properties have been assessed low
through failure judgment the part of the assessor II
conceded that he acted good faith the present instance
But may well repeat what said in substance IN IeF
Assessment 4ppeal II Haw. 242 that great should DC
taken to place proper valuations upon different prop
in with
separately and that discrimination between different taxpayers
unless based real differences circumstances even more
Objectionable than general taxation. In this conne
ton may remark that the appear not always
understand the proper to pursue where sale or o
purchase has been made of particular property where there
has been refusal to sell at certain figures For special reasons
may be willing pay than the general market value
For other be unwilling accept certain SUM-
though greatly of the market value In mos
sale of property throws almost as much light on m
values of neghbong properties upon that of property sou
may be why the assessment of the properly
sold should be raised any than the assessments OF W
neighborng properties should be raised And sometimes l
assessments of properties general particular nelghDoi