The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1902-08-20
No TAX ON
MANS BRAIN
Contention Made
BY Castle and
Cooke.
LABORS OF TAX
COURT ENDED
Final Adjournment viii Be Taken
Today-Rspid Transit Case
Is Presented.

The Tax Appeal Court concluded It's
labors for the term yesterday after the
of the cases of Castle &
Cooke and the Honolulu Rapid TRANSIT
and Land Co. Another session VIII De
held this afternoon to consider any
cases which may have been omitted
and an adjournment will then be taken.
The decisions of the Tax Court VIII De
handed down at some subsequent DAY.
w. A. Bowen was the only witness
in the case of Castle & Cooke, Increased
from a return of $s2.951 to $4,000. TINS
increase was also made upon "good
will" The evidence showed that the
assets of the company amount to S3,-
S62. 932. AS an offset to this amount Is
the money invested in Hawaiian STOCKS
and bonds amounting to S2,2Sl, 0OLao'
Rfus receivable amount to $1,5Sl,l99
which are claimed as exempt and the
corporation insists as did Brewer d 20
that it is being oyertaxed. The pronts
of the firm for year amount TO Szlo'-
5O7 The evidence in this case was
nearly the same as in that or Brewer
& Co., Castle & Cooke claiming that
they are exempt except for real estate
Office fixtures, etc. Less foreign cor
poration stock is held by this corpor-
alton than by Brewer & Co. and the
former also holds more real property
in the islands
Mr.. Bowen testified that he knew OF
an exchange of 1T shares OF the STOCK
of the corporation between E. D. Ten
new and C. H. Anterior. He said that
though he knew of the price paid he
preferred to let the parties speak Tor
themselves, but finally to save TIME
testified that the price paid per snare
was $500. He qualified the statement
by saying that the value OF the gooo
viii of a corporation had nothing to
do with the price of the stock, especial
ly in the instance where it was close
corporation and stock was not offered
on the exchange. There is no sucn
thing as intangible property" conclud-
ed Mr. Bowen. "All the property is IN
this return. Castle & Cooke have no
good will. Yes it is better than new
enterprise would be. 1t seems that
this is a struggle on the part OF the
government TO place a valuation upon
something not defined by law. The law
does not include a return upon praihS'
experience, clear good conscience or
ANYTHING of that sort. A smile may
have a commercial value but ooh
see it specified in the law"
Don't you think that if smile in
creases the value of your property II
is taxable?" asked Mr.. Wilder.
IF the smile is shown in dollars ana
cents to have increased the Value II
should be taxed, but an intangible value
cannot be taxed. Brains, experience
and character are not taxable"
Don't you think if the same property
was managed by different persons II
would effect the value. Isn't that GOOD
will?''
"Good will is put down in solid coin, .
was the answer.
Assessor Pratt was also on the stand
and testified that he had assessed the
stock at its market value of $40
share and made the usual deductions.
There was some argument at the con-
cIusion of the testimony as TO points
involved. w. r. Castle appearing Tor
the appellant contended that tax upon
omen accounts and notes was double
taxation. and that the assessor hdu
gone outside the law in making his as
sessment He argued further that cor
porations could not be taxed upon the
results of investments. Attorney W1ld-
er for the government answered that
intangible property was taxable, ana
that tax should be paid upon values
made by the showing of profits. Gooo
will or more properly. combination OF
brains. skill and management could De
taxed if they increased the value of the
property
The Rapid Transit case was next
taken up. Manager Ba1lentyne appear
ing as the only witness. The return
was made at 1885, 730 and the assessor
increased this to $500, 500. Mr.. Ballen-
TYNE explained the difference, as being
the exemptions to which the corpora
ton was entitled under the franchise
granted by the legislature. He test1-
fed under this he could not be COM
PEELED to paw for rolling stock or other
property on hand but not in actual use
He also said that there had been
depreciation in property values AS
SCISSOR Pratt took the stand and sald
he had made his estimate on the
knowledge at hand, claiming also that
the Rapid Transit Co, could not claim
exemption on property which had not
been listed for such purpose in the re-
/ turn.