The gold leaf. [volume] (Henderson, N.C.) 1881-1911, 1901-04-11
ABOUT DOUBLE TAXATION.
Case Cited Not so i'm Fact as a Little
Reflection Will Show.
(Statesville Landmark. }


The Wadesboro MESSENGER criticises
the people and papers who complain
ed Of the revenue act OF the Legisla-
ture, sarcastically remarkiDg that
they seemed TO be very much alarm
ed lest the so called business interest
should suffer double taxation, while
not a word was said about other peo-
pie on whom double taxes are levied.
Then the Messenger cites the follow
ing as an illustration Of double taxa
ton:
There could not be palmer case
of double taxation than to require A
to list his land for taxes and then re-
quire b, who has mortgage on it,
to list the mortgage as solvent
credit. But this has been the law in
North Carolina ever since this writer
can remember and no one is heard TO
condemn it. The farmers who give
mortgages on their lands have no
money to employ a cloud OF lawyers
to rush to Raleigh every time the
Legislature meets, to look after their
interests.
eases of this sort have been cited as
instances Of double taxation. but we
hold that ii is not double taxation
and think little reflection will show
that it is not. A owns tract of land
and wants to borrow money; Is loans
him the money and takes mortgage
on the land as security. A still
owns the land. Notwithstanding the
mortgage, and he returns it for taxa
ton. which is proper; b had sum of
money which he would, if he COM
piled with the law, return for taxa
ton. He loaned the money to A and
in place OF his cash has mortgage on
AS land, and that mortgage repre-
sents the sum of money previously
owned. The land and the mortgage,
therefore. are two separate and dis
tiuct pieces OF property and we are
unable to understand the train Of
reasoning which arrives at the con-
clusiOn that to tax them both is double
taxation.
Ii A is unable to repay the loan Is
will foreciose the mortgage. Ii a
third party purchases the land he
will then return it for taxation and b
will return the money which he got for
it in place of the mortgage two
separate and distinct pieces of prop
erty. A will of course have no land
to return because he has lost his
property and one doesn't have to pay
taxes on that which he has not; but
the third party, who bought the land,
will pay taxes on it in AS stead,
in addition to the taxes heretofore
paid.
II b, the mortgager, finds no pur-
chaser when he fOrecloses and has to
take the land for the debt, he will
then pay taxes on the land instead of
the mortgage, while A, il he has spent
the money borrowed from b. will paw
taxes on neither land nor money, for
he is out both, but the party to whom
he paid the money borrowed from b
will pay taxes on it or what it repre-
Sents.
1t might be said that if A, when he
borrowed the money from b, kept the
money in his possession and paid
taxes on both the money and the
land, while b paid taxes on his mort
gage. that the money was thu. taxed
twice, which would be true. but there
are no such cases. A man doesn't
borrow money and keep it lying by
him. He either pays it to somebody
he owes. or buys property with it.
In the latter case he pays taxes on
the additional property bought, which
is right. while the man who got the
money. pays taxes on that in lieu Of
the property sold, and b, who loaned
the money pays taxes on his mort
gage, which represents the money
which \ owes him
There is no double taxation in the
case mentioned.