Eagle River review. [volume] (Eagle River, Wis.) 1890-1927, 1903-03-07
Tax CsmmissiCE's Estimate Of Market
Value Of Personal Property in Wisconsin.
1t Was E0seG on False Assumption.
The Commission Cut Down the
vaiua ion of the Local Assessors.
Nssued in Behalf ef WISCONSIN, RalIwavs.l


In the preceding article we discussed the
OF country real estate. We showed that It's
estimate was very much less than the
census returns. We shall next consider the
true value Of PERSONAL property. But be-
fore We say anything In criticism of the
commissions estimates CT the true value Of
the personal property in Wisconsin we
snail state, largely in the commission S own
words, the basis on which it made Its esti-
mates.
On page 66 of its first biennial report the
Tax Commission very briefly explains the
plan On which 1t computed the value of per-
soEal property. Speaking of its own acts
the commission said: In their compata-
lions the commission first calculated thu
total value Of the personal property, by tax
Ing the average ratio Of assessed valuation
to actual value shown by real estate In
each assessment district lit was deemed
fair presumption that the assessor applied
to personal property, or that part OF 1t dis
covered by him, the same ratio that he APP
Piled to real estate), then adding the total
trict for FIVE years and taking an average
Of that and applying to it the real estate
ratio"
Stated in other words the commission arbi-
trarily increased the values of personal
property fixed by the local assessors in the
same ratio TINT it had already increased the
values OF the zeal estate fixed by the same
local assessors. The commission assumed
that only the same degree of under valua-
tlon prevailed in tie case of personal prop
In the case OF real estate. For example, IL
the average assessment for FIVE years OF the
personal property of q certain assessment
district amounted to $4,000 and the COM
mission had previously found that the real
estate of this district for the same five
years had been assessed at but one-half Its
true value the commission would double the
local assessment Of $4,000 to get Its So
called true" value Of the personal property
of the district
We do not concede that the true value Of
q Of hn RAJ
found in this way. First because we be-
lleve assessors under-value personal prop
especially in large cities, and, secondly, be.
cause they find practically all of the real
estate while they find but small part OF
the personal property. The latter conten-
for 1t says sit was deemed a FAIR PRE-
SUMPTION that the assessor applied to
personal property. OR THAT PART OF IT
DISCOVERED BY HIM, the same ratio
that he applied to real estate" In making
its valuations, however 1t proceeded as If 1t
had not made this admission.
We protest against the rough and ready
method adopted by the commission for find.
ing the true value Of the personal property
in tho state; and We insist that the esti-
mates of the commission are not safe
guide for action. The whole controversy
Of whether or not the railroads are paying
their fair share of taxes depends almost en-
tirely on the valuations placed on the other
property in the state and we shall not allow
to go unchallenged the Tax Commission
estimate of the value of personal property
based entirely on presumption" which
neither appeals to common sense nor finds
any support in experience.
The half-hearted attempt Of the commits
sion to discover the personal property which
every one knows escapes taxation is to say
the least both surprising and disappointing
for here lay It's greatest field for usefulness,
and the position of the commission is not at
all strengthened by the apology 1t makes
for it's failure to grapple with the problem
of getting personal property on the assess
ment rolls.
We have now stated the assumption on
which the Tax Commission based its esti-
mate of the true value of the personal prop
erty in Wisconsin and we have also present
| ton and have called attention to the utter
| lack Of zeal displayed by the commission
| in the discharge Of this, It's most Important
task Having discussed its methods we are
submitted by the commission.
| 1t REQUIRES but very superficial examlna-
ton Of the valuations made by the local y as
SCISSORS and those made by the Tax Com
| mission to perceive that there was some.
thing radically wrong with the method Of
| valuation adopted by the latter Wherever
| a local assessor made an effort 70 find the
personal property In his district he was
| able to discover much more of this class OF
| owledge the district contained. In its
| first report the commission made an esti-
mate which it raised s26, 1929 In It's sec
ond report, Of the total value OF the per-
sonal property In the state.
The local assessors in SO of the II coun-
| ties of the state have discovered and as
| sessed much more of this class of property
than the Tax Commission will admit to be
| in existence. Notwithstanding the fact that
| the local assessors have actually found the
property the commission still refuses to be
| convinced Where the local assessors re-
| turns Of personal property were higher than
its own estimates the commission scaled
down the to ms o o
| IT has calmly taken the position that if the
| facts conflict with the thsory 1t has an
| tion it has stated, so much the worse for
| the facts The Tax Commission has prac.
| tically given notice that the valuations or
personal property IN the dfeTent eoun T6s
acts Of the commission suggest the story Of
Procrustes, the tabled highwayman OF
Atca who Is said to hage IF ref the limbs
| the bed he had prepared.
We do not believe the local assessors over
a afit the last last assess assessment Such metamor
phosis of the assessors is not conceivable,
# would be fully as easy to believe the
| turns made by the local assessors fall short
| Of the full value Of the property In their
We can see no ground on which the COM
| mission was Justified in scaling down the
valuations of the local assessors OF 81 or
the II counties of the state DY tne large
sum Of S45, 105, 1872. It would be interest
| ing to hear from the Tax Commission as to
the basis on which It reduced the assess asses;
| county from So, 374 $50 to 81, $685. 28 and the
assessment Of personal property in Chip
pewa county from s5,o93, 0o7 to $2,265 29s.
| in Grant County from $9,093, 637 to S.
| 465, 1868 and the assessment Of the personal
| property In Waupaca county from $4,O32, $50
| to So, 1858, 592.