The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1903-06-02
BREWER & co.
WIN CASE
Continued from page p

Continued from page p
make no material difference so far as
2 | this proposition is concerned whether
the increased value results from IN
: tangible elements in tangible proper
~ or from intangible property alto
gether."
In this latter connection be quotes at
length from the Federal Supreme
Courts decision in Adams Express
Co. VS.. Ohio, the following being pas
sages from the citation:
The burden of the contention of the
express companies is that they have
within the limits Of the State certain
tangible property. such as horses, wag-
ons. etc: that that tangible proper
perty is their only property within the
State; that it must be valued as Other
like property, and upon such valuation
alone can taxes be assessed and levied
against them
| But this contention practically ig-
nores the existence of intangible pro-
perty, or at least denies it's liability
for taxation. In the complex civiliza-
| ton of today a large portion of the
wealth of a community consists in in
tangible property. and there is nothing
in the nature of things or in the limit
atoms of the Federal Constitution
which restraints a State from taxing at
its real value such intangible proper
ty"
As an illustration the Federal Court
supposes the case of A selling 3 certain
property for 100000, and holds that
though not contained in a written in
strument there exists legal promise
on the part of B to pay A 100000 pro-
ceeding:
THAT promise is a part of AS pro- !
t. e
thing on which he will receive cash, a.!
of the community for cash. 1t is as !
certainly property, and property of !
value. as if it were a building or a /
and is as justly subject to |
taxation. 1t matters not in what this /
property consists-whether |
privileges, corporate franchises, con-
tracts or obligations. To ig- |
more this intangible property, or to hold |
that it is not subject to taxation at |
its accepted value, is to eliminate from
the reach of the taxing power a large
portion of the wealth of the country"
Justice Galbraith takes issue with the
in the exclusive construction
If their decision, maintaining contrari-
y that the latest word of the Legisla-
ure does not indicate an intention to
restrict the use of the words real and
PERSONAL property in Section $50 with
n the definitions given prior to its en-
lctment- He contends that the situs
# California stocks and bonds held by
Brewers, for taxation purposes fol-
ows that of the owner and is in this
and should be taxed here.
Upon the holding of the majority
hat the evidence shows no value of
lantation agency contracts, although
was in proof that the commission
called from these contracts by the
axpayer in 1901 amounted to $751; ITO,
he dissenting Justice employs this al t
1ost caustic language: 4
ut may be admitted that the evil
ence does not offer as satisfactory da-
a as might be desired for measuring {
he value of these contracts. But who Nv
to blame for this? The facts were 2
n the possession of the taxpayer. 1t g,
vas it's duty to give them to the as
essor or to the Tax Appeal Court. 1t L
id not to do so. submit that it is J
ot in the interest of the accomplish Y
1ent' of Justice to give to this tax
aver a premium for Withholding in
ormation. In other words, to hold |
hat certain of it's property. which We 4
now is subject to taxation, exempt | C
rom taxation for the reason that the u
axpayer failed to furnish exact evil
ence for fixing the value of the pro-
erty, especially since there is evidence I
rom which a valuation may be placed v
n this property. I.
In conclusion Justice Galbraith Is :,
convinced that the ends of justice
'ould be subserved by the afirmance b
the Judgment of the Tax Appeal S
curt" >