The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1902-08-19
TAX APPEAL COURT
THE RAPID TRANSIT RETURNS
DIFFER
Manager Ballentyne Explains Deprecia-
ton in Values-Castle and Cooke and
Brewer and Co Cases Rest,

The Ra, id Transit Company's appeal
case against the government was set
for 10 o'clock this morning, but the
cases of Brewer & Company and Cas-
tie d Cooke being carried over, these
were disposed of first Judge Whiting
and w. X. Castle appeared tor the two
firms and Robertson & Wilder as cOun-
Gil for the government. W. R. Castle
argued on the question of double tax
alton averring that the present as
SCISSOR had departed from the prlnci-
pies OF legal taxation in that particular
IA DasIns MS assessment upon the as
sumption that promissory notes and
open accounts were contracts, and as
such assessable. That nothing not
mentioned in the taxation act could be
taxed. That in this case the assessor
had gone outside the law and the as
sessment must fall. That persons
should not be taxed for the results OF
investment of capital. 1t was a curl
GUS fact that taking away the values
Of plantation stocks the assessment
should be just eight times the value Of
the income as if it We're a question OF
real estate.
Attorney Wilder for the government,
rested his arguments upon recorded
cases. The Inter-Island Steamship
company case was quoted also that of
/ the Adams Express Company and it's
rehearing before the Supreme Court
the attorney reading from decisions of
the chiet justiCJ He attempted to
prove that the law of taxation regards
all property where 1t is concerned with
an enterprise for profit, as unit of use
! and income. That the counsel for the
] appellants mistook the meaning of the
law in that they merely added the
separate items without taking into ac-
] Increased nv res gn IN n
| their brains, skill, management or what
! might be termed goodwill. Intangible
values were taxable at whatever they
We're worth for sale or income. Another
point aimed at by Mr.. Wilder was the
decision that a promissory note is prop
erty subject to taxation though in
! tangible.
Judge Whiting contended that the
cases cited were not applicable. That It
was not what the legislature meant to
do but what they did. That if they went
outside the statute they were out OF
court and the assessor was in this in
stance out of court himself. There the
cases rested.
Manager Ballentyne of the Rapid
Transit Company was subjected to close
examination as to the differences be-
tween his returns and the corporation
exhibit the same amounting to a diff
ference of $242,I70 in the company's
favor
Mr.. Ballentyne explained that the
change was acquired by the deprecia-
ton in value of real estate and building
the latter owing to excessive freight
rates and labor by land given the gov
ernment of the value of $4,000 and
equipment not in use and road not COM
pleted as provided for by the franchise
of the company. He was willing to in
clude a road roller an artesian well
and a bridge as being overlooked in the
returns.
Examination showed that these
amounts of depreciation had not been
written off the books and Mr.. Ballen-
tyne explained that they would be in
due course of time.
Assessor Pratt, being sworn, testified
that he had asked Mr.. Ballentyne to
submit to him the value of all equip
ed stock so that he could make mis- own
valuations. This had not been done,
Mr. Ballentyne refusing to recognize the
fright of the assessor. Mr.. Pratt claim
ed that otherwise he was unable to de-
termine the assessment accept as he
had done on the valuations of stocks
and bonds.