The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1902-04-24
WHO PAYS THE TAX
Problem Affecting May Wheat De-
livered May l.
THE TAX IS ASSESSED THAT DAY
Owned Half Day by Elevators
and Half by Mills.

I A few days may develop sharp con-
troversy in the grain trade. The ques-
ton is: Must the purchaser or the seller
stand the tax on wheat delivered on May
contracts May /?
/ 1t is rather singular that this question
has not been fought over before. One
reason is that deliveries have not usually
been very heavy in Minneapolis on May l..
This year, however, the mills have a
larger quantity of wheat due them, and
it is expected that instead Of putting 1T
over into July, and SO deferring delivery,
they will want to close the contracts and
will call for the delivery of the wheat.
In this case the tax item will be. some
thing worth considering, and there is a
possibility that the mills may try to put
it upon the elevators.
Wheat delivered May 1 is, of course,
in possession of the elevators from mid
night of April 80 to noon of May. /, and
in possession of the mills from noon OF
May 1 to midnight of same day, which
makes an equal division of the legal day,
and as the state steps in on this day to
levy the tax the question is who ought
| to pay it.. r,.~
Elevator men feel that this question
| must sooner or later be passed upon by
| the supreme court.
| A Legal Opinion.
An exhaustive opinion on the question
from eminent counsel has recently beer
secured by the elevator interests. 1t is
found that, while in the states Of Indiana
Illinois, Nebraska, Texas and Vermont
there are legislative enactments COVERING
the question, there is nothing in the Min.
nesota statutes bearing directly upon it
The Minnesota tax laws say nothing more
than that personal property shall b
| listed and assessed annually with refer.
| ence to value on the first day Of May.
This leaves the question of the applica:
| ton Of the tax in the event of the trans
fer Of large quantity of personal prop
erty on that day; as in the case of thu
delivery Of May wheat, open for J'ldic1a
consideration.
In Washington, California and some
other states, - O'Clock (noon) on tax
| listing day, is fixed as the hour at which
the tax applies, and the owner of tn
property at the stroke of II is the ont
| to whom the tax applies, whatever ma!
have been done with the property earlie
in the day, or whatever may be done will
it later. In Minnesota no such fine dis
tinction has ever been drawn, nor ha
| this question ever been passed upon D,
the Minnesota supreme court.
@7 The clearinghouse Rule.
i There is nothing in the bylaws Of tn
Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce GOV
ering this question, and the trade ha
been governed by the rules of the clear
ing house connected with the chamber
which provide that the buyer OF the graf
shall accept and pay for the same at
before II O'Clock (noon.)
A wisconsin Case.
The opinion concludes with the state
ment that in the event of suit arisin
here, the finding would probably be tina
the receiver must pay the tax. 1t Is be
; lieved that the court would so hold 70
the reason that precedent could b
found in the case of Day VS.. Town, triee
before the supreme court Of Wisconsin
in which substantially the same questio
= was involved and wherein it was hel
that the receiver of the property mus
assume the obligation OF the tax.