Ottumwa semi-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1899-1903, 1902-05-08
BACK TAXES NO DEBT.
So Says Judge McNey in Decision
Made Recently.

Made Recently.
A decision that will be of interest to
great many was made by Judge Nc
Ney at Des Moines recently in the
case OF Henry Hutsonpiller VS.. the
city OF Des Moines and the board of re-
view. The court holds that unpaid
taxes of previous years cannot be con-
sidered as debts to offset against
moneys and credits of the one who
owes the taxes.
payer of East Des Moines, brought ac-
ton in the district court resisting the
payment OF 81, $50 assessment for the
year 1900 and collectible in 1901, in the
ground that the amount owing for
taxes is a debt and that according to
section 1911 of the code he is entitled
to offset debts against moneys and
credits assessments. Judge McVey
holds that while the statutes clearly
define unpaid taxes as a debt it was
certainly not the intention OF the legis-
lature to enact a law which would
have the effect of subdiverting and de-
stroying the power of the sovereign
government which created taxes.
Section 1911 provides that in making
up the amount of moneys and credits
which any person is required to list, OF
to have listed or assessed, including
actual value of a building and loan
share he will be entitled to deduct
from the actual value thereof the gross
amount of all debts, in good faith ow-
ing by him but no acknowledgment
made for the purpose of being so de-
Quoted shall be considered a debt with
in the intent of this section
The various phases of the question
are summed up in the following collu
sions of the court:
Whatever may be the status of the
question as to whether or not taxes are
such debt, as to be enforcible in an
action at law, it is certainly true that
our court has not determined the ques
ton which is at issue in this case
which question is, Can the amount OF
taxes assessed against the property
holder and unpaid be deducted from
the amount of his moneys and credits
under the statutes of this state permit.
ting deduction for ordinary debit"
This question must be determined in
view of certain general principles nee
essarily involved in the construction OF
the statue in question. That the stat
ute has intended to permit a citizen to
deduct from his moneys and credits his
ordinary debts is without question
that tax due and unpaid is debt is
also conceded. but when We take into
consideration the fact that taxes arc
levied by the sovereign power ant
authority for the purpose of carrying
on the functions of that power and
authority it was within the contempla
ton of the legislature to exempt from
taxation, or to deduct such tax fol
moneys and credits, it is an entirely
different question.
II am of the opinion that the legis
lature by the enactment of the statute
in question intended that it should be
applied to the ordinary debts of the
tax payers but did not contemplate
that the whole volume of taxes levied
and assessed for one year, amounting
to many millions of dollars, should be
offset as debt when the property O.
the citizen should the following veal
be listed for taxation.
''The action of the board of review
and assessor are approved and tho
prayer of the petition is denied, ant
the petition is dismissed at the cost O.
the plaintiff"