The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-08-27

greater inequality in actual results than
Is the case under the law 1t now
stands, as viii appear by a little re-
f1ection
(c) Section which prescribes the meth
Cd of estimating incomes provides that
they shall include, among other things,
the amount of sales of all movable prop
erty. less the amount expended IN the
purchase or production of the same. and
In the case of a person not including any
part thereof consumed directly by him
or his family
1t is contended that this lie discrin-
ination in favor of farmers or agrt-
culturalists against other persons
The provision is general It Is not
confined to any particular class. II IS
not invalid because it operates differently
on different members of the community.
As well might il be argued that the car
rfage tax Is invalid because IL dtscriul-
mates in favor of non-carriage owners
against carriage owners. The provision
in question acts uniformly upon all with
In its scope. Further, as We remarked
above, tax laws must be practical. 1t
would be next to impossible for every
one to keep an account, and estimate the
value of everything he produced and con-
| stunned. Accordingly the law makes sales
and expenditures the basis of estimating
| income in the case of movable property,
as it does in the case of real property,
when dealing with the property itself as
distinguished from the income derived
| from it.
| Id Section . which imposes the tax on
| corporations. contains proviso, that
| nothing herein contained shall apply 70
| corporations, companies or associations
conducted solely for charitable religious.
| educational or scientific purposes, in
Guiding fraternal beneficial societies, nor
to insurance companies taxed on a per-
centage of the premiums under the au-
thority of another Act"
! No question seems to be raised as to
charitable, religious, educa tional, scien-
tific or fraternal beneficial societies. cor
porations or companies, but 1t Is con-
tended that there is no reasonable basis
for eXempting insurance companies; that,
while there might be some basis for this
distinction, because an income tax is laid
on insurance companies under another
Act yet that basis is removed by the
fact that that other Act expressly ex-
empts such companies from other taxes
under the Act, thus leading to the result
that insurance companies are taxed only
once while other companies are taxed
twice.
It will be noticed that this Act ex-
empts only such insurance companies as
are taxed on a percentage of the pre-
miums under the other Act, and that IN
der the other Act only foreign insurance
companies are so taxed Thus domestic
insurance companies (of which there are
none) are taxed under both Acts the
same as other companies, and only for
etgn insurance companies are taxed one
per cent, on their gross premiums while
other companies are taxed one per cent
on their property and two per cent. or
their net income II does not appear
that foreign insurance companies OWE
any property in these islands. They may
be presumed perhaps to own some Office
furniture used by their agents which per
haps would not exceed three hundred dol
lars in value-the amount of the genera
exemption in the property tax Act bu
1t is doubtful if we can assume that the,
own more. AS the court said in Cargil
&c. V. Minnesota, supra: 1T is worthy
of observations in this connection that 1
was neither alleged nor proved tina
! there were in the state any elevator!
OF warehouses that were not situated
on the right of way of railroad" Tn
fact that the distinction is confined Il
foreign insurance companies would seen
to indicate that in the opinion of tn
legislature there was some ground upol
which such companies should be taxed II
a different manner from other companies
and we can readily assume that 1t wa
because such companies were doing mucl
business and had little or no propert!
here. In our opinion there was sufficien
ground upon which the legislature coult
classify in the present case.